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

Report No. 76

8.6. Section 30(c).-

The question whether, in section 30(c), the words "that an award is otherwise invalid" are to be read ejusdem generis with what precedes them, or whether they cover all grounds of invalidity of awards has come up before the courts. The nature of the controversy cannot be fully understood without a brief study of the history of the provision. These words did not occur in the Act of 1899, section 14. Nor they did occur in the Code of Civil Procedure of 1882, section 521. They were added for the first time in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Second Schedule, paragraph 15.

The Privy Council had held1 in 1902 that the legislature intended to give finality to awards and to decrees passed in accordance therewith. Since, under the Code of 1882, an award could be set aside only on the grounds mentioned in section 521 of that Code, the grievance arose that as its validity could not be contested on any other ground, it became final.2 The addition of these words in the Code of 1908 was thus intended to widen the scope of interference by the courts.

1. Ghulam Khan v. Mohammed Hasan, (1902) 20 Indian Appeals 51: ILR 29 Cal 167 (PC).

2. See discussion in Lutawan Kubar v. Lachiva, AIR 1914 All 447 (449) (Banerjee, J.).



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