Judgment · High Court · 2008
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Judgment
Arbitration Request No. 42/2007 -2-5.Facts noticed above does not inspire to hold that asituation referable to Section 14(i) has arisen. That apart, theparties are at dispute as to whether any of the grounds referredto in clause (a) of sub Section (i) of Section 14 exists. If thatwere so, the jurisdiction is with the Principal Civil Court of originaljurisdiction to decide an application under Section 14(2) in viewof Section 2(1)(e) of the Act. 6. If the case is to be considered on the exclusive basisof Section 11(6)(c), the action taken by the Arbitrator does notlead to a situation whether it can be held that he has failed toperform the functions entrusted to him under the agreedprocedure, though there is some substance in the case of thepetitioner that the arbitration proceedings are being undulydelayed. But the materials are insufficient to conclude that the Arbitrator appointed as per Annexure A(8) has failed to performthe functions entrusted to him. In the result, this arbitration request is refused, however, clarifying that the Arbitrator and the Railways shall ensure thatthere is no further delay in concluding the proceedings and an Arbitration Request No. 42/2007 -3-award shall be passed at the earliest, at any rate, within a periodof three months. THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN,JUDGEjp
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — s. 11.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Kerala High Court, on 04 Mar 2008. The bench was THOTTATHIL B RADHAKRISHNAN.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.