Arbitration Matter:–– The Act, 2001 is a special law and it has been enacted with the sole purpose of resolving the dispute between the parties through arbitration and after an award is given by the Arbitrator(s), if it is allowed to be challenged in a civil suit, then the arbitration proceeding shall become a mockery and the whole purpose of the arbitration scheme as envisaged in the Act, 2001 shall fail. Therefore, the trial Court rightly rejected the plaint. .....Md. Nurul Abser =VS= Alhaj Golam Rabbani & others, [1 LM (AD) 212] ....View Full Judgment

Arbitration Matter:–– The arbitral award is generally not open to review by Courts for any error in finding on facts and applying law for the simple reason that it would defeat the very purpose of the arbitration proceedings. .....TATA Power Company Ltd. =VS= M/S Dynamic Construction, [1 LM (AD) 456] ....View Full Judgment

Arbitration Matter:–– Whenever an award is challenged before any Court, the Court, i.e. either District Court or as in this case the High Court Division, does not sit on appeal over the decision of the learned Arbitrator. Therefore, the scope of considering the merits of the case and factual aspects is again very limited. .....TATA Power Company Ltd. =VS= M/S Dynamic Construction, [1 LM (AD) 456] ....View Full Judgment

Arbitration Matter:–– The High Court Division noted that the Arbitrator considered each and every item separately and individually and that in some items the Arbitrator did not pass any award as mentioned by first-party. The High Court Division came to a finding that it could not be said that the Arbitrator whimsically, erroneously, capriciously, passed the award in total non-consideration of materials on record. .....BWDB =VS= M/S. United Builders, [3 LM (AD) 162] ....View Full Judgment

Arbitrator awards–– Both the parties appointed their respective Arbitrators, who could not concur with each other in their opinion and gave different Awards. Thereafter, the Chairman of the Arbitral Tribunal finally arrived at his own decision with a completely separate award on 20.02.2013. In the above award, the learned Chairman of the Arbitral Tribunal accepted the price for 10% defective Dal at Tk.78 per K.G. as fixed by the Price Fixation Committee of TCB and also declared that the respondent is entitled to get refund of Tk.95,00,000/- deposited by the respondent as performance security forfeited by the petitioner.
Against the decision Nos.II and part of III of the Award passed by the learned Chairman of Arbitral Tribunal, the petitioner TCB filed a case before the District Judge seeking to set aside the award and the learned District Judge after hearing of both the parties allowed the Arbitration Miscellaneous Case No.227 of 2013 and set aside Clause II and part of Clause III of the Arbitration Award dated 20.03.2013 passed by the learned Chairman of the Arbitral Tribunal in respect of Contract No.TCB/MP-2605/2010 dated 19.09.2010.
Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment, the 1st party-appellant (present respondent) preferred First Miscellaneous Appeal No.177 of 2015 before the High Court Division. The learned Judges of the High Court Division by the judgment and order dated 07.12.2016 allowed the appeal.
Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order passed by the High Court Division, the leave-petitioner filed this civil petition for leave to appeal before this Division.
The findings arrived at and the decision made by the High Court Division having been made on proper appreciation of law and fact do not call for interference. Accordingly, this civil petition is dismissed. ...Trading Corporation of Bangladesh=VS=M/S Trio Hologram Ind. Ltd. , [6 LM (AD) 186] ....View Full Judgment

The Judges are the final arbiter–– The Judges are the final arbiter between litigants and between the public and powerful authorities and organisations. The authority of the Courts and the Judges is not undermined in any way. .....The State =VS= Adv. Md. Qamrul Islam, M.P & another, [1 LM (AD) 28] ....View Full Judgment

The Act, 2001 is a special law and it has been enacted with the sole purpose of resolving the dispute between the parties through arbitration and after an award is given by the Arbitrator(s), if it is allowed to be challenged in a civil suit, then the arbitration proceeding shall become a mockery and the whole purpose of the arbitration scheme as envisaged in the Act, 2001 shall fail. Therefore, the trial Court rightly rejected the plaint. …Md. Nurul Abser Vs Alhaj Golam Rabbani & ors, (Civil), 6 SCOB [2016] AD 54 ....View Full Judgment

Arbitration proceeding: It appears from the judgment of the High Court Division that the High Court Division found that there was a valid agreement between the plaintiff and defendant wherein an arbitration clause has been stipulated and pursuant to the said agreement an arbitration proceeding has already been commenced before the Arbitration Tribunal at Liverpool. This suit has been instituted subsequent to the arbitration proceeding. The High Court Division held that though written statement has been filed but, in fact, the same can be treated as information to the court regarding pendency of arbitration proceeding before Arbitration Tribunal at Liverpool. Since arbitration proceeding has already been initiated between the parties before initiation of the instant suit, we are of the view that the High Court Division rightly disposed of the Rule staying further proceeding of the suit with a direction to settle the dispute in the arbitration proceeding. …Mosharaf Com. Tex. Mills Ltd & ors Vs. ECOM Agro. Corp. Ltd & ors, (Civil), 4 SCOB [2015] AD 28 ....View Full Judgment

Arbitrator awards–
Both the parties appointed their respective Arbitrators, who could not concur with each other in their opinion and gave different Awards. Thereafter, the Chairman of the Arbitral Tribunal finally arrived at his own decision with a completely separate award on 20.02.2013. In the above award, the learned Chairman of the Arbitral Tribunal accepted the price for 10% defective Dal at Tk.78 per K.G. as fixed by the Price Fixation Committee of TCB and also declared that the respondent is entitled to get refund of Tk.95,00,000/- deposited by the respondent as performance security forfeited by the petitioner.
Against the decision Nos.II and part of III of the Award passed by the learned Chairman of Arbitral Tribunal, the petitioner TCB filed a case before the District Judge seeking to set aside the award and the learned District Judge after hearing of both the parties allowed the Arbitration Miscellaneous Case No.227 of 2013 and set aside Clause II and part of Clause III of the Arbitration Award dated 20.03.2013 passed by the learned Chairman of the Arbitral Tribunal in respect of Contract No.TCB/MP-2605/2010 dated 19.09.2010.
Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment, the 1st party-appellant (present respondent) preferred First Miscellaneous Appeal No.177 of 2015 before the High Court Division. The learned Judges of the High Court Division by the judgment and order dated 07.12.2016 allowed the appeal.
Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order passed by the High Court Division, the leave-petitioner filed this civil petition for leave to appeal before this Division.
The findings arrived at and the decision made by the High Court Division having been made on proper appreciation of law and fact do not call for interference. Accordingly, this civil petition is dismissed. ...Trading Corporation of Bangladesh=VS=M/S Trio Hologram Ind. Ltd. , (Civil), 2019 (1) [6 LM (AD) 186] ....View Full Judgment

Whenever any party to an arbitration agreement will take recourse to the Court of District Judge of any particular District, the said District Judge Court shall have the exclusive jurisdiction over the said arbitration matter up to the period of final termination of the arbitral proceedings, and not any other District Judge Court. Ghulam Mohiuddin (Bhutto) -Vs.- Mrs. Rokeya Din and others (Spl. Original)2019 ALR (HCD) Online 174 ....View Full Judgment

While as a normal course of action, the Legislature does not go for enactment of a law by which the superior Court’s jurisdiction and power will be scrapped or cur-tailed in order to enrich and empower the sub-ordinate Courts with the said jurisdiction and power, yet if the Legislature in their wisdom considers it necessary, they are competent to enact such law. However, this sort of enactment is normally made by the Legislature in clearer and specific expressions and, furthermore, in passing such laws the Parliament usually tables some explanations before the House. Ghulam Mohiuddin (Bhutto) -Vs.- Mrs. Rokeya Din and others (Spl. Original) 2019 ALR (HCD) Online 174 ....View Full Judgment