Article 3 of the First Schedule to the Act — ­Time for award 4 months
The appellant would seem to have no ground to stand upon, since it appears that the award was made beyond the period mentioned therein.
When the arbitration proceedings continued beyond 4 months with the parties raising no objection-Conclusion is the party concerned has waived its right.
Enlargement of time (beyond 4 months) for giving the award by consent of the both parties, permissible-Such enlargement of time may be provided for in the agreement-In the absence of such agreement consent may be inferred by conduct of parties.
Government of Bangladesh vs Jalaluddin Ahmed 37 DLR (AD) 27.

The Arbitration Act, 2001
Section 3(3), 6, 7A & 12 r/w
Local Government (City Corporation) Act, 2009
Section 87(2)
In Section 3 clause 11 of the lease agreement dated 24.06.2023, it is found that, there remains the Arbitration Clause, where it has been provided, inter-alia, for reference to arbitration consisting of arbitrators of whom the Petitioner and the respondent No.6 shall nominate one Arbitrator, in case of disputes arising between the parties thereto in connection with or arising out of the said contract. It was further provided that two of the arbitrators, appointed by both the parties, will nominate one umpire who will be the Chairman of the Arbitration Tribunal. ––In that view of the matter this Civil Petition is disposed of. Mr. Hasan Foez Siddique, former Chief Justice of Bangladesh is hereby appointed as chairman of the Arbitration Tribunal and Mr. Moyeenul Islam Chowdhury, former Judge of the High Court Division, Supreme Court of Bangladesh is appointed as arbitrator representing the Dhaka North City Corporation. However, the remuneration of the Chairman of the Arbitration Tribunal shall be fixed at a sum of taka 10,00,000/- (ten lacs) in total. The parties are directed to bear all the expenses equally. ––The arbitration Tribunal shall act in accordance with law. All the observations and directions of the High Court Division in the Judgment and order dated 06.04.2023 in Arbitration application No. 01 of 2021 is hereby declared redundant having no bearing upon any legal proceedings. .....Dhaka North City Corporation (DNCC) =VS= Learned District Judge, (Civil), 2024(1) [16 LM (AD) 605] ....View Full Judgment

Civil suit is, never ipso facto intended to be barred in view of the existence of an arbitration clause in the agreement–
53 DLR AD 62 this Division held that– “The Court while deciding application about rejection of plaint is not permitted in law to travel beyond the averments made in the plaint.”
When a party in a pending proceeding willingly participate by filling a written statement instead of invoking provision of the Arbitration clause raising legal issue in a suit surrendering his jurisdiction of arbitration and thereby the provision of section 7 of the Arbitration Act become nugatory regarding the said proceeding. On a careful reading of the stipulations of clause 25 of the h¡wm¡­cn glj ew 2911 we are of the view that it can’t be treated as bar to sought relief in a suit claiming compensation. The terms and subjects of the said clause of arbitration as laid down specifically which are not the subject of the suit nor on a plain reading of the averment of the suit it appears that its touch the subject of clause 25 of the Agreement.
It civil suit is, therefore, never ipso facto intended to be barred in view of the existence of an arbitration clause in the agreement. The defendants take the plea of bar only for dragging the proceeding of the suit which is deprecated by this Division. This Division find no illegality and infirmity in the judgment of the High Court Division. The appeal having no merit. …Roads & Highway Department (RHD) =VS= Md. Nurul Islam, (Civil), 2019 (2) [7 LM (AD) 132] ....View Full Judgment

When parties to the suit submit themselves to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court, the dispute should not be referred to arbitration.
The defendant have submitted themselves to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court by filing written statement and contested the suit and thereby they failed to avail the opportunity of resorting to the arbitration by seeking stay of the suit before the Civil Court. Executive Chairman, BEPZA -Vs.- M/S. Abdul Mannan 3 ALR(2014)(1)(AD)168

Each party to appoint their own arbitrator to proceed arbitration expeditiously– The High Court Division held that the Court below did not commit any illegality either by rejecting the application for dismissal of the arbitration miscellaneous case or in appointing two arbitrators, and thereby discharged the Rule. Both partiers indicated that they would each wish to appoint their own Arbitrator. Consequently, the learned Advocate for the plaintiff-respondent herein suggested the name of Mr. Justice Md. Abdur Rashid, a retired Judge of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh, and the petitioner before us (defendant) suggested the name of Mr. Justice Moyeenul Islam Chowdhury, a retired Judge of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh as his nominated Arbitrator. Appellate Division asked both the learned Advocates appearing for the parties concerned whether they have any objection to such appointment, to which each indicated that his client does not have any objection. Since each party has chosen his own arbitrator and there is no objection from his opponent, let the matter of arbitration proceed expeditiously in accordance with law. The judgement and order of the High Court Division is set aside and the Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No.1976 of 2021 is disposed of. ...Quamrul Huda =VS= Mohammad Nazrul Islam Alam, (Civil), 2021(2) [11 LM (AD) 56] ....View Full Judgment

A combined reading of the provisions of sections 42, 43 and 39 of the Act, 2001 clearly shows that the only remedy open to a person who wants to set aside an arbitral award is to file an application under section 42 of the Act, 2001 within sixty days from the date of receipt of the award and after the expiry of the period of sixty days as envisaged in the section, the award becomes enforceable within the meaning of section 44 thereof and thus, jurisdiction of the civil Court has impliedly been barred if not expressly. In the context, we may also refer to section 9 of the Code which has clearly provided that the Courts shall have jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil nature excepting suits of which their cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred and therefore, in view of the provision of section 42 of the Act, 2001, clause (d) of rule 11, Order VII of the Code is attracted. .....Md. Nurul Abser =VS= Alhaj Golam Rabbani & others, (Civil), 2016-[1 LM (AD) 212] ....View Full Judgment

A combined reading of the provisions of sections 42, 43 and 39 of the Act, 2001 clearly shows that the only remedy open to a person who wants to set aside an arbitral award is to file an application under section 42 of the Act, 2001 within sixty days from the date of receipt of the award and after the expiry of the period of sixty days as envisaged in the section, the award becomes enforceable within the meaning of section 44 thereof and thus, jurisdiction of the civil Court has impliedly been barred if not expressly. In the context, we may also refer to section 9 of the Code which has clearly provided that the Courts shall have jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil nature excepting suits of which their cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred and therefore, in view of the provision of section 42 of the Act, 2001, clause (d) of rule 11, Order VII of the Code is attracted. …Md. Nurul Abser Vs Alhaj Golam Rabbani & ors, (Civil), 6 SCOB [2016] AD 54 ....View Full Judgment

Setting aside arbitral award on the grounds enumerated u/s 43—
read with
Contract Act, 1872—
Section 73— Not attracted in the instant case—
The appellant claimed compensation on account of delay in. completion of the project. The Arbitration Tribunal did not allow compensation on account of the delay. The District Judge refused to set aside the award as there was no such ground as enumerated under section 43 of the Arbitration Act, 2001. The High Court Division held section 73 of the Contract Act, 1872 is not attracted in the instant case. It is further held arbitral award can only be set aside when it is opposed to law and public policy, excessive, malafide and not based on materials on record. As the arbitral award does not suffer from any infirmity the learned judges of the High Court Division dismissed the appeal. Bangladesh Power Development Board and others Vs. M/s Arab Contractors (BD) Ltd. and others 15 MLR (2010) (AD) 153.

The High Court Division was right in holding that the 3rd arbitrator was neither consulted nor given an opportunity by the Chairman to deliberate and express his views on the issues before making and signing the award in question. Saudi Arabian Airlines Corporation vs Saudi Bangladesh Services Company Ltd 15 BLC (AD) 156.

Setting aside the arbitral award on ground of being opposed to law and public policy—
Section 73— Counter claim based on remote and indirect consequence is not admissible—
The dispute in the instant case was referred to a three-member arbitration tribunal which made the impugned award. The third member gave a dissenting note as he was not given the opportunity of participation in the deliberation. The Arbitration Tribunal did not allow the counter claim based on remote and indirect consequences as provided under section 73 of the Contract Act, 1872 with which the apex court concurred, but held that in order to be sustainable the award must be by majority upon participation of all the members of the tribunal which is the requirement of law. As the impugned award has not been passed in accordance with law and is opposed to public policy the High Court Division set-aside the same which the Appellate Division upheld. Saudi Arabian Air Lines Corporation, represented by its Country Manager Vs. M/S Saudi Bangladesh Services Company Ltd, represented by its Managing Director 15 MLR (2010) (AD) 153.

The Arbitral tribunal travelled beyond its jurisdiction by entertaining and deciding issues which has not been referred to by the contending sides– The issues framed for determination by the arbitral tribunal it appears that no such issue was framed to determine whether the Department would get anything because it made no counter claim against the clamant company. Since there was no counter claim the tribunal rightly did not frame any issue on it. But passing an award of taka six crores and odd or the reduced amount of taka three crores and odd in favour the Department the tribunal has travelled beyond the terms of reference and as such the same is beyond its jurisdiction.
It is held that the High Court Division did not commit any illegality in setting aside the award on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. Thus, Appellate Division does not find any reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order of the High Court Divi-sion. ...Ministry of Communication, BD =VS= Startus Construction, (Civil), 2021(2) [11 LM (AD) 89] ....View Full Judgment

Arbitration award– Order sheet of the arbitration proceeding and the judgment of the High Court Division. We do not find any element as provided in section 43 of the Arbitration Act, 2001 for setting aside the arbitral award in the pleadings and other materials produced by the respondent. We also did not find any allegation and proof of fraud or corruption or the arbitration award has been made in contravention of law or the arbitrator have failed to give reasons in the arbitration award. The High Court Division has committed error of law in setting aside the arbitral award of the majority arbitrators. We find substances in this appeal. ...Saudi Arabian Airlines Corporation =VS= M/S Saudi Bangladesh Services Co. Ltd., (Civil), 2021(1) [10 LM (AD) 212] ....View Full Judgment

The factual and contractual positions are matters for decision of the Arbitrator and as such, unless there appears to be gross illegality, neither the High Court Division nor this Division would enter into the merit of such arguments. .....TATA Power Company Ltd. =VS= M/S Dynamic Construction, (Civil), 2016-[1 LM (AD) 456] ....View Full Judgment

The Arbitration Act, 2001
Section 43
Bangladesh Energy Regulatory Commission Act
Section 40
The Substantive PPA and the Supplemental PPA-2 originated from the Private Sector Power Generation Policy of Bangladesh, 1996 and the subsequent Land Lease Agreement and Implementation Agreements executed between the Government and SPL which are indeed sovereign contracts and the Supplemental PPA-2 originated thereform cannot be termed as commercial contract. Further it would transpired from the perusal of Supplemental PPA-2 that different clauses of the agreement referred to the Substantive PPA in various ways, and as such it is clear that the Supplemental Power Purchase Agreement-2 is a continuation of the Substantive PPA of 2000 and it is not a fresh contract. ––Appellate Division is of the view that the Arbitral Tribunal constituted by the BERC had no jurisdiction to arbitrate the dispute referred by the SPL pursuant to the Clause 15.3 of the Substantive Agreement dated 10.02.2000 executed between the parties and as such arbitration proceeding and award passed by the said Tribunal are liable to be declared without lawful authority and of no legal effect. .....Bangladesh Rural Electrification Board =VS= Bangladesh Energy Regulatory Commission, (Civil), 2023(1) [14 LM (AD) 509] ....View Full Judgment