https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199531 Where the agreement appointed the Superintending Engineer for the time being as arbitrator, a successor incumbent could validly complete the reference when the parties knew of the change, received notice, and participated without protest. That conduct amounted to acquiescence, so a later objection to jurisdiction or alleged breach of natural justice failed. A further challenge that all claims were not separately considered also failed, because an unreasoned award is not reopened unless there is a patent mistake of law or a gross misstatement of facts causing miscarriage of justice, which was not shown. en-us Tue, 16 Aug 1988 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 14 Apr 2025 15:28:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199531 Where the agreement appointed the Superintending Engineer for the time being as arbitrator, a successor incumbent could validly complete the reference when the parties knew of the change, received notice, and participated without protest. That conduct amounted to acquiescence, so a later objection to jurisdiction or alleged breach of natural justice failed. A further challenge that all claims were not separately considered also failed, because an unreasoned award is not reopened unless there is a patent mistake of law or a gross misstatement of facts causing miscarriage of justice, which was not shown. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 16 Aug 1988 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199531