TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the time for making the award could be extended after expiry of the stipulated period on the basis of the parties' conduct and consent. (ii) Whether the award was liable to be set aside for error of law on the face of the award or for being a speaking award.
Issue (i): Whether the time for making the award could be extended after expiry of the stipulated period on the basis of the parties' conduct and consent.
Analysis: The Court held that the policy of arbitration law is to avoid undue delay, but the power to extend time for making the award could be exercised judicially by the court even after expiry of the period or after the award had been made. It further noted that where the parties proceeded before the umpire without demur and consented to enlargement of time, the case fell within the recognised exception permitting extension.
Conclusion: The objection that the umpire had become functus officio was rejected, and the time for making the award was extended in favour of the claimant.
Issue (ii): Whether the award was liable to be set aside for error of law on the face of the award or for being a speaking award.
Analysis: The Court held that interference is permissible only where a legal proposition forming the basis of the award appears on the face of the award or an incorporated document. Mere inference from narration of facts or criticism of the reasoning process is insufficient. On reading the award as a whole, no reasons or legal propositions were disclosed; it was a non-speaking award that merely recorded the result and history of the dispute.
Conclusion: The challenge to the award failed, and no ground was made out for setting it aside.
Final Conclusion: The objections to the award were overruled, the award was confirmed, and a decree was directed to be passed in terms of the award with interest and costs.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the parties participate without objection and consent to enlargement of time, the court may extend the period for making an arbitral award even after expiry, and a non-speaking award cannot be set aside unless an error of law appears on its face.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
