1942 (8) TMI 11 - HC - Companies Law

Court dismisses petition, awards costs to respondent, upholding arbitration timeline and authority.

Shivchandrai Jhunjhunwalla Versus Mussamat Panno Bibi

The court dismissed the petition, awarding costs to the respondent. It held that the arbitration reference was made within the limitation period despite ... - Issues:1. Limitation period for arbitration reference2. Jurisdiction of Chairman of Association and umpire to extend time for award3. Entitlement of respondent to conduct arbitration proceedings and apply for decreeAnalysis:1. The first issue raised in the petition was regarding the limitation period for the arbitration reference. The contract in question was for May 1938, with the due date being May 25, 1938. The petition alleged that the reference made on May 26, 1941, was beyond the limitation period. However, it was argued that since May 25, 1941, was a Sunday, the reference made on May 26, 1941, was within the time limit. The court held that the first ground failed as the reference was made within the permissible time frame.2. The second issue concerned the jurisdiction of the Chairman of the Association and the umpire to extend the time for making the award without the consent of the parties. The petitioner argued that such extension of time without consent was void under Section 28 of the Indian Arbitration Act. However, it was contended that the by-laws of the East India Cotton Association, Ltd., provided for such extensions. The court held that the by-laws framed under the Cotton Contracts Act were statutory and therefore operative, exempting them from the provisions of the Arbitration Act. The court cited previous judgments to support this interpretation.3. The third issue revolved around the respondent's entitlement to conduct arbitration proceedings and apply for a decree as the widow and successor to the deceased's estate. The petitioner challenged this on the grounds of inadequate representation and legality of the award. The court held that under the Indian Arbitration Act, the legal representative of a deceased party could enforce the arbitration agreement. The court emphasized that the arbitrators were tasked with determining the respondent's entitlement, and their decision could not be challenged based on adequacy of materials. The court also noted that the respondent's ability to apply for a decree would be subject to fulfilling legal requirements under the Indian Succession Act.In conclusion, the petition was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the respondent. The court upheld the validity of the arbitration award and affirmed the respondent's right to conduct arbitration proceedings and seek a decree in accordance with the law.