Skip to main content

After arbitration, witness has no role

After an award is passed in an arbitration, there cannot be any examination or cross-examination of witnesses in court on an allegation of legal misconduct by the arbitrator. The court can only examine the records of the arbitration proceedings, the Supreme Court has stated in its judgment, Cochin Shipyard Ltd vs Apeejay Shipping Ltd. "Examination of any witness in court is impermissible to substantiate legal misconduct on the part of the arbitrator. It is because it must be palpable from the proceedings," the court said. In this case, the government undertaking agreed to build a ship for Apeejay. Disputes arose between them which were referred to arbitration by a retired Supreme Court judge. The shipyard moved the civil judge to execute the award of 2009. Apeejay then wanted to examine the arbitrator and the general manager (GM) on its allegation that the arbitrator was guilty of legal misconduct (not moral misconduct, which is different in law). The judge rejected it. The Kerala High Court also rejected the demand, but allowed the GM to be examined along with the records of arbitration. The shipyard, therefore, moved the Supreme Court against the demand for examination of witness. It ruled that the examination should be only of the evidence on record and not of witnesses through oral examination.

Article referred: http://www.business-standard.com/article/opinion/compulsory-pre-emptive-buying-held-illegal-115111500777_1.html

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

Loss of earning capacity, and not percentage of disability, must decide compensation, says HC

While computing compensation claims of accident victims, the victim's loss of earning capacity shall outweigh the percentage/extent of his disability, the Madras high court has felt. Justice R Mahadevan, enhancing the compensation payable to an injured driver by Rs 2 lakh, said: "In cases for compensation, it is not the disability, which is partial or total, alone that matters, it is the loss in earning capacity as a result of accident that is to be considered." R Murali, driver of a mixed concrete vehicle, met with an accident in January 2009 and suffered injuries in hip, right leg and ankle. He claimed loss of 100% earning capacity and sought appropriate compensation along with 12% interest rate. However, as the disability certificate issued by a doctor pegged the percentage of his disability at 60%, the deputy commissioner of labour-II, awarded Rs 3.12 lakh as compensation, by fixing the monthly income at Rs 4,000. Aggrieved by the poor package, Murali filed the...
Post a Comment
Read more

Section 138 NI Act: Omission To Mention Nature Of Debt Or Liability In Notice Does Not Render It Invalid

In Crl.MC.No. 3289 of 2015, B.SURENDRA DAS vs STATE OF KERALA, the court was considering a petition seeking to quash the criminal proceedings on the ground that no demand for payment of the amount of the cheque was made by the complainant as per the notice sent by him and therefore, the notice is defective and the proceedings initiated against the accused pursuant to such notice cannot be sustained. The court observed that there is no statutory requirement that the complainant must specifically allege in the complaint that there was a subsisting liability. All the complainant has to do is to raise a demand for payment which is a notice to the debtor giving him time to pay but there is no format in which the notice is to be sent.
Post a Comment
Read more