Law: Arbitration Act (X of 1940)

Section: 3 , 14 , 28 , 30 , 33

Arbitration Act (X of 1940)--- ---Ss. 3, 14, 28, 30 & 33---Objections against award---Duty of Court while hearing such objections---Court while hearing objections to award could not undertake reappraisal of evidence recorded by Arbitrator to discover error or infirmity therein---Error or infirmity in award which would render the same invalid must appear on the face of award and should be discovered by reading the same---Where reasons recorded by Arbitrator were impugned as perverse, such perversity in reasoning must be substantiated with reference to material considered by Arbitrator in award---Court while hearing objections against award was not legally competent to reappraise award or to assess and examine evidence to determine whether another possible conclusion could be drawn therefrom---Where dispute related to discharge and handling of cargo, claimant having actively participated in discharge and handling of same on behalf of respondent (Authority), it was not open to respondent to turn round and blow hot and cold at the same time---Award was not vitiated for having been made long after expiry of four months---Court was empowered to enlarge time for making award irrespective of fact whether time had expired or not and whether award had been made or not---Time for making award could be extended on oral application of parties or on Court's own accord---Provision of S.3, Arbitration Act, 1940, postulates that Arbitrator would make award within 4 months after entering on reference or after having been called upon to act by notice in writing from any party to. arbitration agreement or within such extended time as Court might allow---Where after expiry of four months, parties had submitted themselves to jurisdiction of Arbitrator and had taken part in proceedings enabling Arbitrator to make award, he could not be deemed to have acted without jurisdiction---Conduct and participation in proceedings by respondent would clearly reflect that he had consented to continuation of proceedings even after expiry of four months' period which was deemed to have been extended by consent of   parties---Award was, thus, not vitiated by reason of making it…