Case Details

Citation(s)
1961 SLG 2200 1961 SLD 2200 = 1961 PLD 454
Dacca High Court
Appeals from Original Orders Nos. 6 to 11 of 1959, decided on 6th December 1960.  
Presented By: Imam Hussain Chowdhury, C. J. and Abdus Sattar, J
H. S. Suhrawardy, Asrarul Hossain and Md. Nurul Haq for Appellants   Maksumul Hakim and M. S. Rahman for
Respondents.  

  M/s. Alhaj MUHAMMAD KERAMAT ALI & Co. LTD., DACCA-Appellants  

VERSUS

  M/s AMIN JUTE MILLS, LTD., CHITTAGONG-Respondents  

Law: Arbitration Act, 1940

Section: S. 16 (1) (6)

(a) Arbitration Act (X of 1940)-----   ------ S. 16 (1) (6)-Award is sufficiently certain if "that is sufficiently certain which can be made certain"-Mere fact that amount was not actually ascertained by arbitrators not sufficient justification for holding award to be uncertain.   For an award to be final, the meaning is not that nothing shall remain to be done to complete the execution of the award, but that the thing to be done shall have been determined and defined to a reasonable certainty. The mere fact that the amount to be paid was nod actually ascertained or calculated by the arbitrators would not be sufficient justification for holding the award to be uncertain for the principle is that if the arbitrator has given rules for calculating the amount of money to be paid, without stating the result of such calculation, the award is sufficiently certain, on the principle that, that is sufficiently certain which can be made certain.   Manindra Nath Mandal and others v. Mahananda Roy and others 15 C L J 360; Mian Nathu and another v. Abdul Ghani A I R 1930 Lah. 22 and Broom on Legal Maxims 1911, p. 478 ref.   Simpson v. The Commissioners of Inland Revenue (1914) 2 K B 842; Matthews v. Commissioners of Inland Revenue (1914) 3 K B 192 K. K. N. K. Chokulingam Chetty v. S. P. S. T. R. M. Raman Chetty A I R 1925 Rang. 155 ref.   Champsey Bhara & Company v. Jivraj Balloo Spinning and Weaving Company, Limited 50 I A 324 rel.   (b) Arbitration Act (X of 1940)-------   ---------- S. 16 (1) (b)-Court should make every reasonable intendment favour of an award being final, certain and sufficient termination of matters in dispute.   (c) Arbitration------   -----Question relating to what happened before arbitrator-Arbitrator may be called as witness to ascertain the same-Arbitration Act (X of 1940), S. 16 (1) (b).   Leiserach v. Schalit and Schalit v. Leiserach (1934) 2 K B 353 rel.   JUDGMENT   SA'ITAR, J.-These six appeals by the defendant are directed against the order of the Subordinate Judge, Second Court, Dacca by which he refused to remit or set aside six awards filed in Court by the…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register