SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1971 Supreme(SC) 479

A. N. RAY, D. G. PALEKAR, S. M. SIKRI
Keshavsinh Dwarkadas Kapadia – Appellant
Versus
Indian Engineering Company – Respondent


Judgement

RAY, J.:- These two appeals are by special leave against the judgment dated 17 October, 1968 of the High Court at Bombay determining under Section 33 of the Arbitration Act that the umpire rightly entered upon the reference and further extending the time till 31 December 1968 for making an award thereof by the umpire.

2. Two questions arise for consideration in these appeals. First whether there can be any valid appointment of umpire by arbitrators without obtaining consent of the appointee to be an umpire. Second, on the construction of the arbitration agreement in the present case was the operation of paragraph 4 of Schedule I of the Arbitration Act excluded with the result that the umpire could enter upon the reference only in the event of a difference arising between the arbitrators.

3. On 26 April, 1967 there was an arbitration agreement between the partnership firm of Indian Engineering Company and Keshavsinh Dwarkadas Kapadia. Kapadia had appointed M/s. Chetan Trading Company as the sole selling agent of Kapadia s several products including aluminium and copper wires by an agreement dated 16 September, 1965. Chetan Trading Company in their turn appointed Indian Engine
































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top