Summary
The Court restored the arbitral award and the order making it rule of court. Under the contract, the engineer’s required rank qualified him for appointment; retirement did not terminate his mandate or make continued arbitration misconduct. The clause contained no retirement-termination condition, and the court had extended time after expressly rejecting that objection in an order that became final. The Uttar Pradesh amendment concerning an arbitrator becoming incapable of acting did not equate retirement with incapacity. The appeal was allowed without costs.
Issues
- Whether retirement ended the appointed engineer’s mandate under the particular arbitration clause or made his continued participation misconduct.
- Whether the statutory vacancy provision or a renewed objection displaced the final time-extension order.
Provisions considered
- Section 4(2), as amended in Uttar Pradesh, Arbitration Act, 1940The vacancy provision for refusal, neglect, incapacity or death did not apply merely because the appointed arbitrator retired from service. (¶ 15)
Held
- Clause 52 required appointment of an officer of Superintending Engineer rank or higher who was unconnected with the work. The appointee met those conditions. The clause did not end his mandate at retirement, so he remained arbitrator through completion unless disqualified under the governing law; retirement alone did not terminate this appointment. (¶¶ 2.1, 11, 12, 13)
- The respondents raised the retirement objection when the civil court considered extension of time. It was rejected and time extended; that order became final. The respondents could not renew the same objection to invalidate the ensuing award. (¶¶ 2.3, 2.4, 14)
- Retirement was not incapacity within the Uttar Pradesh vacancy provision. Nor was it misconduct to continue and deliver the award within the period expressly extended by the court after retirement. The High Court’s contrary basis for setting aside the award was legally unsustainable. (¶¶ 15, 16)
- The appeal was allowed, the High Court judgment set aside, and both the award of 8 January 1998 and the civil court order making it rule of court restored. No costs were ordered. (¶¶ 17, 18)
Result
Appeal allowed without costs; arbitral award and civil court order making it rule of court restored.