Report No. 76
8.8. Conflict under 1940 Act.-
There has been a conflict of judicial view on the scope of the words "is otherwise invalid" in section 30 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 also. One view which has been taken is that these words should receive a narrow construction and be taken ejusdem generis with the words occurring in the preceding portion of the section.1-4
1. Basantal v. Surendra Parasad, AIR 1957 Pat 417 (421), paras. 26, 37 and 45.
2. Mangal Singh v. Nawab Singh, AIR 1962 All 219.
3. Prem Sagar v. Security and Finance Ltd., AIR 1968 Del 21 (24), paras. 4-5 (FB)
4. See case law reviewed in Saha & Co. v. Ishar Singh, AIR 1956 Cal 321 (FB).
8.9. The other view is that these words are to be construed widely1-2 and not to be taken ejusdem generis with the preceding words in the section. In a case arising under paragraph 15 of the Second Schedule to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, before the enactment of Arbitration Act of 1940, the Allahabad High Court3 by majority held that the above words should not be construed ejusdem generis with the preceding words. Iqbal Ahmed J. in his dissenting judgment, however, took the view that these words should be construed ejusdem generis with the preceding words.
1. A.R. Savkur v. Amrital Kalidas, AIR 1954 Born 293.
2. Saha & Co. v. Ishar Singh Krispal Singh & Co., AIR 1956 Cal 321.
3. Mariam v. Amina, AIR 1937 All 65 (74) (FB).