TYEBBHAI ESSUBHAI THANAWALLA Vs. ABDUL HUSEIN TYEBALLY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff alleges that he was anxious to be heard by the arbitrators and to lay before them his evidence on the question of damages to be awarded to him.

(2.) The ordinary rule is that the enquiry before the arbitrator is assimilated as near as may be to the proceedings on a trial in the Courts. In the ordinary course, at the appointed time and place the parties appear with their witnesses to support their respective cases, as stated in Russell on Arbitration, 10 Edn., p. 379. This rule has been applied in India. I need only refer to the leading cas9 of Ganga Sahai V/s. Lekhraj Singh (1886) I.L.R. 9 All. 253 and the Privy Council case of Amir Begam V/s. Badr-ud-din Husain (1914) I.L.R. 36 All. 336 343 P.C. where it is said: If irregularities in procedure can be proved which would amount to no proper hearing of the matters in dispute there would be misconduct sufficient to vitiate the award without any imputation on the honesty or impartiality of the arbitrator.

(3.) Therefore, if the parties are not given notice of any meeting, in the ordinary case that would clearly amount to misconduct on the part of the arbitrators. The only question here is whether the case is an exceptional one to which this ordinary rule does not apply. Mr. Munshi for the defendants relies upon the case of Johnston V/s. Cheape (1817) 5 Dow 247. The submission in that case recited that the arbitrator had been appointed on account of his skill and knowledge of the subject, and it was held that the arbitrator was justified in refusing to receive certain evidence offered by one of the parties, if taking all the matters alleged to be facts into consideration, with his own local knowledge to guide him and all the circumstances in his view, he felt that such facts would have no effect upon his determination.