Text Practice Mode

G.D. Bist Volume 1 Legal Matter Shorthand Dictation Exercise 17

created Jun 16th, 03:35 by Praveen Mahour



405 words
105 completed
A dispute arouse between the parties and matter was referred to arbitrator. Due to some reasons arbitration proceeding were not concluded. Respondent filed an application before High Court seeking removal of the arbitrator. High Court directed appellant to appoint a new arbitrator and further directed the arbitrator so appointed to concluded the arbitration proceedings within 6 months. After the expiry of the 6 month both the parties extended the time to conclude arbitration. The arbitrator failed to publish the award within the extended time. Respondent filed application before High Court for a declaration that the mandate of the arbitrator stood terminated. A perusal of arbitration agreement revealed that the arbitrator had power (appear) to enlarge the time to make and publish the award by mutual consent of the parties. Therefore, without the consent of both the parties to the dispute arbitrator had no power to further extend the time beyond that which is fixed. It is an admitted position that the respondent did not give any consent for extension of time. Thus the arbitrator had no power to further enlarge the time to make and publish the award and therefore his mandate had automatically terminated after the expiry of time fixed by the parties to conclude the proceedings. Arbitration is an efficacious and alternative way of dispute resolution between the parties. There is not denying the fact that the method of arbitration has evolved over the period of time to help the parties to speedily resolve their disputes  through this process and in fact the arbitration and conciliation act recongnised this aspect and has elaborate (report) provisions to cater the needs of speedy disposal of  disputes. The present case illustrates that in spite of adopting (attempting) this efficacious way of resolving the disputes between the parties through the arbitration process lingered on for a consideration length of time which defeated the notion of the whole process of resolving the disputes through arbitration. The contention of the appellant therefore cannot be justified that since the dispute was highly technical in nature. It had to be dealt with elaborately by the arbitrator and that he was justified in the being late. High Court correctly fixed the time for the arbitration to be concluded within the period of six months from the appointment of the forth arbitrator considering the time that was spent  for the arbitration process prior to his appointment, being a technical and complex issue.  

saving score / loading statistics ...