Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1970 (2) TMI 143

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nstruction of the buildings on October 12, 1957. A final bill for payment to the appellants of the amount due under the contract was prepared on March 20, 1958. The appellants accepted payment under protest. On October 29, 1900 the appellants by a letter addressed to the Superintending Engineer applied for a reference to arbitration of the disputes relating to payment under the terms of the contract. The request was repeated by another letter dated August 30, 1961. One Malkani who was appointed arbitrator by the Superintending Engineer died before he could make his award. After certain infructuous proceedings, which it is not necessary to set out, in an application moved by the appellant, the Deputy Commissioner, Shillong, made an order u .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ourt agreed with the Deputy Commissioner that the arbitrator acted in violation of the rules of natural justice, but they did not consider the plea that the arbitrator acted in excess of his jurisdiction, nor that there was a bar of limitation to the entertainment of the claim. 3. In our view, the judgment of the Deputy Commissioner, for reasons to be presently, set out, cannot be sustained. The arbitrator entered upon the reference on May 21, 1065. The proceeding continued before him till December 31, 1965. On December 31, 1965 counsel appearing for the Union of India requested for time till January 10, 1966 to submit written legal arguments . The arbitrator acceded to the request and gave time till January 10, 1966, On that day counse .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ciate how the arbitrator acted in violation of the principles of natural justice. In refusing to show any more indulgence the arbitrator did not act improperly, nor did he act in a manner contrary to the rules of natural justice. The grounds given by the Deputy Commissioner in setting aside the award proceed upon a complete misconception as to what constitutes misconduct on the part of the arbitrator. 5. The High Court declined to enter upon an enquiry whether the arbitrator acted improperly in making an award after the Union had failed to file, its written arguments on January 15, 1906, for in their view, the question was one of fact. We are unable to agree with the High Court. The reasons given by the Deputy Commissioner were, in o .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... eement by cl. 25 provides: Except where otherwise provided in the contract all questions and disputes relating to the meaning of the specifications, designs and instructions hereinbefore mentioned and as to the quality of workmanship or materials used on the work or as to any other questions, claim, right, matter or thing, whatsoever, in any way arising out of, or relating to the contract, designs, drawing, specifications, estimates, instructions , orders or these conditions or otherwise concerning the works or the execution or failure to execute the same what ever, arising during the progress of the work or after the completion or abandonment thereof shall be referred to the sole arbitration of the Superintending Engineer, X X X X X .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... hall be to a person named or designated in the agreement, requiring that the difference he submitted to the person so named or designated. In the present case the work of construction was completed on October 12, 1957. The bill was prepared on March 20, 1958, and the appellants had demanded of the Superintending Engineer that a reference be made by letter dated October 29, 1960. The request was repeated in the subsequent letter dated August 30, 1961. The first demand cannot on account of the second request be wiped out. No objection was raised at the time when Dutta was appointed arbitrator by the order of the Court of the Deputy Commissioner that the claim was barred by the law of limitation, not was the contention raised before the Hig .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates