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

Flat owner without legal title has consumer rights

In a significant judgment, the South Mumbai Consumer Forum has held that a flat owner legally occupying the flat would be a consumer, even if his title to the flat might be in dispute before a competent court. Thurlow owned a flat in a co-operative society. Appuswami was residing with him. In 1976, Appuswami got married in the same flat, and his wife started residing in the same flat. They had three children, born and brought up in the same flat. After Thurlow expired in 2004, Appuswami approached the High Court for inheritance to Thurlow's estate but expired while the matter was pending. His wife and children were brought on record. Subsequently, the society intervened, contending Appuswami did not have any right to the flat and it should be handed over to the Society. The Appuswami family continued to reside in the flat, and even pay the society's outgoings and maintenance charges. Later, the society stopped collecting maintenance charges from all members, as it earned...
Post a Comment
Read more

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more