TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
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
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether an umpire, upon disagreement between arbitrators, is required to start the reference de novo or may proceed from the stage of disagreement, and whether a party can insist on rehearing of evidence; (ii) Whether the appellant's challenge to the award disclosed any ground for interference with the concurrent findings sustaining the award.
Issue (i): Whether an umpire, upon disagreement between arbitrators, is required to start the reference de novo or may proceed from the stage of disagreement, and whether a party can insist on rehearing of evidence.
Analysis: Article 4 of the First Schedule to the Arbitration Act, 1940 provides that the umpire enters on the reference in lieu of the arbitrators. The expression signifies that the umpire assumes the place of the arbitrators and is not bound to recommence the entire proceeding afresh merely because the matter has been referred to him on disagreement. A de novo hearing was construed purposively to mean a fresh hearing on the basis of the pleadings, evidence and documents already on record, subject to a timely application for rehearing of evidence or witnesses. The right to seek rehearing can be waived by conduct, and a belated application made after the proceedings had substantially advanced was held to be an attempt to reopen the matter at the end of the hearing.
Conclusion: The umpire was not required to conduct the reference afresh as a matter of course, and the appellant's request for de novo hearing was rightly rejected on waiver and delay.
Issue (ii): Whether the appellant's challenge to the award disclosed any ground for interference with the concurrent findings sustaining the award.
Analysis: The scope of court interference with an arbitral award was held to be narrow. Appraisement of evidence and determination of contractual claims lie within the arbitral domain, and a court cannot reassess the evidence merely because a different view is possible. The award was found to have considered the relevant circumstances and to disclose no manifest error or disregard of legal principles. The concurrent courts below had therefore committed no infirmity in sustaining the award.
Conclusion: No ground for interference with the award was made out, and the challenge on merits failed.
Final Conclusion: The appeal failed in entirety, and the award as sustained by the courts below stood undisturbed.
Ratio Decidendi: An umpire entered upon a reference in the place of the arbitrators and need not begin the arbitration de novo unless a timely request for rehearing is made; courts will not interfere with an award absent manifest error or a jurisdictional infirmity.
TaxTMI 
