Act/Law wise: Judgment of Supreme Court of Bangladesh (AD)
Arbitration Act [I of 2001] (সালিস আইন) | |||
---|---|---|---|
Section/Order/ Article/Rule/ Regulation | Head Note | Parties Name | Reference/Citation |
Article 3 |
Article 3 of the First Schedule to the Act — Time for award 4 months
|
Government of Bangladesh vs Jalaluddin Ahmed | 37 DLR (AD) 27 |
Section 3(3), 6, 7A & 12 r/w |
The Arbitration Act, 2001
|
Dhaka North City Corporation (DNCC) =VS= Learned District Judge | 16 LM (AD) 605 |
Section 7 and 10 |
Civil suit is, never ipso facto intended to be barred in view of the
existence of an arbitration clause in the agreement–
|
Roads & Highway Department (RHD) =VS= Md. Nurul Islam | 7 LM (AD) 132 |
Section 10 |
When parties to the suit submit themselves to the jurisdiction of the Civil
Court, the dispute should not be referred to arbitration.
|
Executive Chairman, BEPZA -Vs.- M/S. Abdul Mannan | 3 ALR (AD) 168 |
Section 12 |
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 |
Quamrul Huda =VS= Mohammad Nazrul Islam Alam | 11 LM (AD) 56 |
Sections 39, 42, 43 and 44 |
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 |
Md. Nurul Abser =VS= Alhaj Golam Rabbani & others | 1 LM (AD) 212 |
Sections 39, 42, 43 and 44 |
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 |
Md. Nurul Abser Vs Alhaj Golam Rabbani & ors | 6 SCOB [2016] AD 54 |
Sections 42 and 43 |
Setting aside arbitral award on the grounds enumerated u/s 43—
|
Bangladesh Power Development Board and others Vs. M/s Arab Contractors (BD) Ltd. and others | 15 MLR (AD) 153 |
Sections 42 & 43 |
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. |
Saudi Arabian Airlines Corporation vs Saudi Bangladesh Services Company Ltd. | 15 BLC (AD) 156 |
Sections 42 and 43 |
Setting aside the arbitral award on ground of being opposed to law and
public policy—
|
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 (AD) 153 |
Section 42(2) r/w section 43 |
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.
|
Ministry of Communication, Bangladesh =VS= Startus Construction | 11 LM (AD) 89 |
Section 43 |
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 |
Saudi Arabian Airlines Corporation =VS= M/S Saudi Bangladesh Services Co. Ltd. | 10 LM (AD) 212 |
Section 43 (1)(b) (ii) and (iii) |
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 |
TATA Power Company Ltd. =VS= M/S Dynamic Construction | 1 LM (AD) 456 |
Section 43 |
The Arbitration Act, 2001
|
Bangladesh Rural Electrification Board =VS= Bangladesh Energy Regulatory Commission | 14 LM (AD) 509 |