Contractual arbitration procedure prevails where reconstituted tribunal, written submissions, and limited cross-examination caused no legal misconduct.
The arbitral award was upheld because the tribunal's reconstitution after remittal was consistent with the parties' contract and the Bengal Chamber of Commerce and Industry rules. The court treated the respondent's typed filing as a compilation of arguments from existing pleadings, so no separate opportunity to reply was required. It also held that the agreed arbitral procedure did not give an unfettered right of cross-examination, and the proposed questions were largely argumentative, irrelevant, or already covered by the record. In a contractual arbitration, the agreed private procedure prevailed over a broad natural justice objection, and no legal misconduct was established; the challenge to set aside the award therefore failed.
Issues: Whether the award of the arbitral tribunal was liable to be set aside on the grounds that the tribunal was not properly constituted after remittal, that the respondent was allowed to place a written submission without opportunity to reply, and that the applicant was denied cross-examination, amounting to legal misconduct.
Analysis: The remittal order under Section 16 of the Arbitration Act was construed as remitting the matter to arbitration under the parties' contract and the rules of the Bengal Chamber of Commerce and Industry. The reconstitution of the tribunal was therefore permissible under the agreed arbitral procedure. The typed document filed by the respondent was treated as a list of arguments taken from the existing pleadings and not a fresh written statement requiring a rejoinder. On the cross-examination objection, the agreed arbitral rules did not confer an unfettered right of cross-examination, and the questions tendered were found to be largely argumentative, irrelevant, or already covered by the record. In such a contractual arbitration, the agreed private procedure prevailed over a general appeal to natural justice, and no legal misconduct was made out.
Conclusion: The award was not invalid or void, and the application to set it aside failed.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
