Login : Advocate | Client
Home Post Your Case My Account Law College Law Library

Report No. 76

5.18. Position in England.-

In England, the Courts have refused to limit the power of remission to the specified grounds.1 It may be stated2 in broad terms that where the award or any part thereof if grossly wrong, the award may be remitted. As was observed in an Australian case3-"Arbitrators are not selected to act despotically or illegally if that can be reasonably prevented".

A well-known English case4 may be referred to in the context of technical misconduct. In that case, an arbitrator with whom a letter book was left, read letters other than those put in evidence and his award was materially influenced thereby. The award was remitted on that ground. If such a situation arose in India under section 16, the power of remission would not be exercisable and the only course left open would be to set aside the award.

It would, then, appear that there is everything to be said for a wide jurisdiction in regard to remission of the award. This would not strictly be an innovation, because the Act of 1899 did provide for a wide jurisdiction in this regard. Moreover, it would be consistent with justice and convenience. At the same time, care has to be taken that scope is not created for unnecessary interference by the court.

1. Margulies Brothers Ltd. v. Dafins Thomaides & Co. Ltd., (1958) 1 WLR 983 400 (401).

2. Russell, (1970), pp. 377, 378.

3. Carr v. Wodomga Shira, (1924) 34 CLR 234.

4. Devenport v. Vickery, (1861) 9 WR 701; Sircar Law of Arbitration in British India, (1942), p. 20.

Arbitration Act, 1940 Back

Client Area | Advocate Area | Blogs | About Us | User Agreement | Privacy Policy | Advertise | Media Coverage | Contact Us | Site Map
powered and driven by neosys