Report No. 76
3.15. Difference between English and Indian Ac.- Genesis.-
It may not be out of place to explain how differences between the two Acts arose. As regards the first point,1 section 8(1) of the Indian Act of 1899 was, by its terms, confined to the case of a single arbitrator. Since clause (a) was so confined, consequentially clause
(b), applicable to a case of the arbitrator declining to proceed further, would also be so confined. There was, however, a conflict of decisions on the point, one view being that in a case of submission of dispute to three arbitrators all of whom had, after acting, declined to proceed further, the Court could not appoint new arbitrators, while the contrary view was taken in some cases.2-3
The 1940 Act has now clarified the position.4 In the notes on clauses to the Bill of 1939, the matter has been dealt with under clause 8 by stating that it reproduces, with some verbal changes, section 8 of the 1899 Act.
1. Para. 3.14, supra.
2. Kuthiammal v. Sarangapani, AIR 1931 Mad 170.
3. Ramji v. Hari, AIR 1939 Sind 81 (case law discussed).
4. Notes on Clauses published under Notification dated 22-7-1939, Government of India Gazette, Part V, 22-7-1939, p. 129,-et seq.
3.16. It may be noted, that the court has no power to make an appointment in cases not falling within the section.