Back
S. B. SINHA
Dulal Poddar – Appellant
Versus
Executive Engineer, Dona Canal Division – Respondent
Key Points: - The award given by an arbitrator without giving opportunity of hearing is illegal and void. (!) - No notice was sent to the respondent before appointing the arbitrator. (!) - Ex-parte award arising from lack of opportunity to be heard is invalid; High Court upholding appointment and award was challenged and dismissed. (!) - Civil Court may consider appointing a new arbitrator expeditiously under the Act. (!) - Appeal dismissed with no order as to costs. (!) - Parallel citation: Dulal Poddar v. Executive Engineer, Dona Canal Division and Ors., 2003(8) Supreme 279. (!) - The case originates from Patna High Court and concerns Arbitration Act provisions S.8 and S.30. (!) (!)
ORDER
The appellant, who was a contractor, entered into an agreement with the respondents for carrying on construction of a canal. The agreement provided that in case of any dispute arising under the contract, the matter would be decided by an Arbitrator, who would be the Superintending Engineer. Disputes and differences having been arisen between the parties, the Arbitration Agreement was invoked by the appellant pursuant whereto the respondent herein appointed the Superintending Engineer as the Arbitrator. The said Arbitrator passed an interim award. Inspite of several requests made by the appellant herein the Arbitrator did not consider his claims and pass a final award.
2. The appellant herein, thereafter filed an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 in the Court of Subordinate Judge I, Bettiah. It appears that the said Court without issuing an notice to the respondents appointed a retired Chief Engineer as an Arbitrator. When the respondents came to know about the appointment of the said Arbitrator, they filed a revision petition before the High Court challenging the appointment of the said Arbitrator as illegal. In the revision petition, no order of stay, h
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
