HARI KRISHAN WATTAL versus VAIKUNTH NATH PANDYA

HARI KRISHAN WATTAL versus VAIKUNTH NATH PANDYA

An arbitrator can validly enlarge the time for making the award if, after entering on the reference, both parties mutually consent in writing to such enlargement, even without specific stipulation in the original arbitration agreement. The agreement was not vague or uncertain as the disputes and scope were clear within the context of the business of Wattal & Co.

Parties
Appellant: Hari Krishan Wattal; Respondent: Vaikunth Nath Pandya; Respondent: Madhav Prasad; Respondent: M. V. Goswamy
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
18 July 1973
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From Judgment and Order Dated December 7, 1966 of the Allahabad High Court in F.a.f.o. 31 of 1963
Outcome
Appeal allowed; matter remanded to the High Court for disposal in accordance with law after hearing parties on points not previously agitated.
Legal Topics
Extension of Time for Award, Validity of Arbitration Agreement, Mutual Consent in Arbitration
Arbitration Contract Extension of Time for Award Validity of Arbitration Agreement Mutual Consent in Arbitration

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hari Krishan Wattal

Appellant

Vaikunth Nath Pandya

Respondent

Madhav Prasad

Respondent

M. V. Goswamy

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From Judgment and Order Dated December 7, 1966 of the Allahabad High Court in F.a.f.o. 31 of 1963

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether enlargement of time for making an arbitral award by mutual consent is valid under Arbitration Act, 1940
  2. 2 Whether the arbitration agreement was defective due to vagueness and uncertainty

Ratio Decidendi

An arbitrator can validly enlarge the time for making the award if, after entering on the reference, both parties mutually consent in writing to such enlargement, even without specific stipulation in the original arbitration agreement. The agreement was not vague or uncertain as the disputes and scope were clear within the context of the business of Wattal & Co.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; matter remanded to the High Court for disposal in accordance with law after hearing parties on points not previously agitated.

Orders

  • Award made within extended time by mutual consent is valid.
  • Arbitration agreement is not defective due to vagueness or uncertainty.