Law: Arbitration Act, 1940

Section: 14

(a) Arbitration Act (X of 1940)--S. 14---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. VII, R.2 & O.XLVII, R.1---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Arts.158 & 178---Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act (VIII of 1974), S.42---Azad Jammu and Kashmir Supreme Court Rules, O. XLVI---Review of Supreme Court --- Money suit--- Arbitration proceedings--- Objection to report/award of the Arbitrator---Limitation---Parties having agreed for appointment of an arbitrator, Trial Court appointed arbitrator who filed report in presence of the parties---None of the parties filed objection on the report submitted by the arbitrator with stipulated period of 30 days---Later on after about 2-1/2 months, plaintiffs filed objection to the said report and prayed for setting aside the award---Court rejected the objection which was filed beyond the period of limitation and passed decree in terms of award submitted by the arbitrator---Feeling aggrieved from the and decree of the Trial Court, the plaintiff filed appeal in High Court---High Court modified the and decree of the Trial Court to the extent of finding regarding over-payment to the plaintiff, and rest of the and decree was upheld---Appeal filed before the Supreme Court having been dismissed the plaintiff had filed review petition---Award/report having been submitted by the arbitrator in presence of counsel for the parties, written notice was not the requirement of law---Plaintiff having failed to point out any error apparent on the face of record in the under review, no case for review was made out---Review petition was dismissed by the Supreme Court in circumstances. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O. XLVII, R.1---Azad Jammu and Kashmir Supreme Court Rules, O. XLVI--- Review of Supreme Court ---Supreme Court could review its under O.XLVI of Supreme Court Rules on the grounds similar to those mentioned in O.XLVII, C.P.C., which postulated that the review was permissible on the ground of error apparent on the face of record on discovery of some new evidence or fact; but the review was not permissible, if a party would argue that a different interpretation of law was possible. Ramnath Agarwal v. G.S. Iyer, Collector…

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492