Arbitrators' failure to deliver an award triggered the umpire clause, requiring appointment under the stock exchange bye-laws.

Where stock exchange bye-laws require arbitrators to deliver an award within four months, or within any valid extension, failure to do so activates the umpire mechanism. The pleadings showed the arbitrators had been appointed long earlier, the accounts had even been referred to an auditor, and no award had been made; those facts were not controverted. On that basis, Bye-law No. 248(1) applied, and the Council of Management was bound to appoint an umpire. The writ petition therefore succeeded.

---

---

Issues: Whether, on the arbitrators' failure to make an award within the prescribed time under the stock exchange bye-laws, the Council of Management was bound to appoint an umpire.

Analysis: The bye-laws and regulations required the arbitrators to make their award within four months or within any extended period permitted under the rules. The pleadings showed that the arbitrators had been appointed long earlier, the matter had even been referred to an auditor for scrutiny of the accounts, and yet no award had been passed. As the factual assertions were not controverted, the condition for invoking the umpire clause stood satisfied. Bye-law No. 248(1) was therefore attracted.

Conclusion: The first respondent was required to appoint an umpire, and the writ petition succeeded.

---