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 second arbitration award was barred by res judicata after the first award had been set aside on the ground of want of opportunity; (ii) Whether the claim could not be entertained in arbitration because it was barred by limitation.
Issue (i): Whether the second arbitration award was barred by res judicata after the first award had been set aside on the ground of want of opportunity.
Analysis: The first award was annulled because the arbitrator had proceeded ex parte without giving the petitioner a fair chance to present his case. The setting aside of that award did not amount to an adjudication on the merits of the dispute between the parties. For res judicata to apply, the matter must have been heard and finally decided by a competent court, and that requirement was not satisfied here.
Conclusion: The bar of res judicata did not apply, and the second award was not invalid on that ground.
Issue (ii): Whether the claim could not be entertained in arbitration because it was barred by limitation.
Analysis: The expiry of limitation for filing a suit does not by itself destroy the underlying right to recover. In arbitration proceedings under the applicable enactment, the Limitation Act did not operate so as to prevent the arbitrator from entertaining a claim merely because it might have been time-barred if brought in court. The limitation objection therefore failed.
Conclusion: The claim was not defeated on the ground of limitation.
Final Conclusion: The writ petition failed on both grounds and the challenge to enforcement of the second award was rejected.
Ratio Decidendi: An order setting aside an ex parte award for denial of fair hearing does not decide the dispute on merits for purposes of res judicata, and a time-barred civil claim is not necessarily incapable of being entertained in arbitration under the applicable statutory regime.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
