SL CITATION CASE NAME PRINCIPLE

NO.
1. 22 BLC 145 International Sea Foods Limited vs BD A plaint will not be rejected under order VII,
Year: 2017 Corporation Rule 11 of the Code because of the presence of
an arbitration clause. The proper recourse is to
stay proceedings under section 10(2) of the Act,
till conclusion of arbitration proceedings.

Relevant Section
Bangladesh: 10(2)
India: 8
UK:9
2. 23 BLC 793 Khaled Rab vs Bangladesh Jute Mills A contract is the creation of an agreement
Year: Corporation (Civil) between the parties. Where the parties under the
terms and conditions of the contract agree to
incorporate an arbitration clause, that clause is a
collateral term in the contract, which relates to
resolution of disputes and not performance. Even
if the performance of the contract comes to an
end on account of repudiation, frustration or
breach of contract, the arbitration agreement
would survive for the purpose of resolution of
disputes arising under or in connection with the
contract.

Where the plaintiff in the suit claim the relief for

recovery of outstanding/unpaid rent in the suit
cannot be said to have no connection to or not
have arisen out of in consequence of the Lease
Agreement. Even the question as to whether the
parties are discharged from the performance of
the contract is directly related to the claim for
compensation or damages for breach of the
 contract. The arbitration clause clearly evidences
that all these disputes were intended by the
parties to be decided under the provisions of the
Arbitration Act.

Relevant Section
Bangladesh: 7, 10
India: 8
UK:9
3. 23 BLC 834 Sarker Steel Limited vs Government Agreement in dispute that the venue of the
Bangladesh arbitration is not in Bangladesh and the
applicable law is of England and the rules to be
followed is the ICC rules of Arbitration.
Therefore no question of applicability of the
Arbitration Act 2001 to this agreement arises at
all so far the provision of section 3 of the
Arbitration Act 2001 is concerned. Therefore,
this application under section 7A under the
provision of Arbitration Act, 2001 is a
misconceived one

Relevant Section
Bangladesh: 7A
India: 9
UK: 39
4. 23 BLC 561 Multiplan Limited vs Principal, Md. Zaynal Under section 36 of the Real Estate
Abedin (Civil) Development and Management Act, 2010 there
is a pre-condition before taking any legal action
against the developer but in the Arbitration
Miscellaneous Case, no such notice has been
served upon the petitioners at any point of time
before filing of the Arbitration Miscellaneous
Case, as such the Arbitration Miscellaneous Case
 is not maintainable. More so, the District Judge
has got no authority to compel the parties to sit
on arbitration as per section 36(5) of the Real
Estate Development and Management Act, 2010.

Under Section 36 of Act, 2010 District Judge has

got no jurisdiction to entertain any application
under section 12 of Arbitration Act for
appointment of Arbitrators and also has no
jurisdiction to entertain any application under
section 7Ka of Arbitration Act to pass an order
of injunction in a case of dispute between
Developer and Flat purchaser.

Relevant Section
Bangladesh: 7Ka and 12
India: 9, 11
UK: 39, 16
5. 24 BLC 98 Multiplan Limited vs Barrister Md. Abdul Rule was sought, prayed for and issued
Baten Sheikh (Civil) challenging the legality of the impugned order
under section 7Ka of the Arbitration Act, 2001
within the arbitration Misc. Case filed under
section 12 of the Arbitration Act, 2001 for
appointment of Arbitrator. It is the considered
finding that, the irregularity may be rectified
upon the concerned Trial Court renumbering the
application under section 7Ka of the Arbitration
Act, 2001 as a separate Misc. Case in accordance
with the provisions of Serial No. 38 of Rule 774
of the CRO (Volume-1).

Relevant Section
Bangladesh: 7A
 India: 9
UK: 39
6. 24 BLC 275 Bangladesh Water Development Board vs Neither the law nor the contract agreement
Additional District Judge, 6th Court, Chittagong prescribes any qualification that the arbitrator
(Spl Original) has to be a different person depending on the
nature of the dispute rather from the provision of
law it appears that Court has unfettered
discretion under sub-section (4) of section 12 of
the Act in the matter of appointment of an
arbitrator after hearing the parties.

Relevant Section
Bangladesh: 12(4)
India: 11
UK: 16
7. 25 BLC 355 Home for All Developer Ltd vs Quazi Harunul Evidently, the trial Court has not referred to any
Hoque (Civil) provision of the Salish Ain, 2001 or of the Real
Estate Ain, 2010 or any other law imposing any
bar to the filing of, or entertaining, a suit so as to
render the plaint liable to be rejected under Order
7 rule 11(d), CPC. The trial court has referred
only to clause 15 of the agreement.

Evidently clause 15 of the agreement does not

contemplate an arbitration process. There is
nothing on record to show that the parties
otherwise agreed to have an
arbitration process. So the agreement cannot be
treated as a and therefore section 7 of
the Ain, 2001 or section 36 of the Real Estate
Ain, 2010 does not come into play and these
provisions do not stand as a legal bar to the filing
of, or entertaining, the suit. Even section 10 does
 not come into play for the same reason.

Relevant Section
Bangladesh: 7 and 10
India: 8
UK:9
8. 26 BLT (HCD) 01 Bangladesh Railway vs M/S. China National Whether an application praying for setting aside
Machinery Imp. & Exp. Corp & Ors of the Arbitral Award, delivered by the Arbitral
Tribunal on the ground that the Arbitral Tribunal
did not consider the provision of article 10.3 of
the agreement connected to the issue of “late
delivery charge to be paid by the supplier, the
opposite party, for the delay in delivering the
railway carriage”

The instant application is a frivolous application

only to drag the question of payment of the
outstanding bill to the contractor for indefinite
period. The instant petition impugning an arbitral
award is not maintainable on its present grounds
as taken in the petition. In view of the discussion
and reasoning as above this court find that the
instant petition is liable to be rejected and the
instant petition not only to be rejected but also
the second party respondent /petitioner is
required to be imposed with the liability of
compensation to be paid to the contractor and
also the cost of the instant application, due to the
reason of dragging the payment of the
contractors bill for not less than 10 years.

Relevant Section
Bangladesh: 43(1)(a)(iv)
 India: 34
9. 27 BLT (AD) 171 Executive Engineer Roads & Highway Dept vs The legislature has enacted the provision of bar
Md. Md. Nurul Islam and Ors in the Arbitration Act, 2001 with a view to
prevent the parties to an arbitration agreement to
start any proceeding before any court without
exhausting the provision of arbitration. The
legislature, therefore, in subsection (1) of the
section 10 has laid down the provision which has
clearly and positively provided that any
objection regarding the proceeding in the civil
court that must be taken in the earliest
opportunity before filing the written statement in
the suit. However, from the facts of the instant
case and from the pleadings of the plaint it is
very crystal clear that there is no legal
impediment or any cogent reason to hold that
clause 25 of the agreement stands as a bar to file
the instant suit for compensation.

Relevant Section
Bangladesh: 10(1)
India: 8
UK:9
10. 27 BLT (HCD) 235 Bangladesh Water Development Board vs Neither the law nor the contract agreement
Additional District Judge & Ors. prescribes any qualification that the arbitrator
has to be a different person depending on the
nature of the dispute rather from the provision of
law it appears that Court has unfettered
discretion under Sub-section (4) of section 12 of
the Arbitration Act in the matter of appointment
of an arbitrator after hearing the parties.

Relevant Section:
 Bangladesh: 12(4)
India: 11
UK: 16
11. 2018(2) LNJ 184 Md. Mosharaf Hossain vs A.M.G Belayet On a careful reading the provision of section 7 of
Hossain and others (Civil) the Arbitration Act, 2001 we are of the
considered view that the learned Joint District
Judge has misconstrued the provision of
section 7 of the Act, because neither of the party
sought arbitration before any Court and no
proceeding is pending in any Court regarding the
prayer of the suit or for any dispute. So, we are
of the considered opinion to invoke the
Arbitration jurisdiction as bar to file the suit
either of the party must file any proceeding
before any Court seeking redress against another
party invoking the provision of Arbitration
clause before filing the suit however, in the
present case no arbitration proceeding is pending
regarding the suit property. We are, therefore, of
the view that the prayers of the suit are not
decidable by the Arbitrator as per Arbitration
clause which reflected from pleadings and
prayers of the suit because those are the beyond
jurisdiction of Arbitrator and a competent Court
of civil jurisdiction has to decide the suit in
accordance with law. We have noticed the
pleadings and prayers of the suit. On a careful
scrutiny it is apparent that those claims and
prayers are outside the clause of Arbitration of
partnership deed because the Bank has already
acquired the title of the suit property within the
knowledge of both the parties which supersede
the provision of Arbitration. We can place
 reliance in support of our view to the precedence
of the case of Chittagong Port Authority vs. M/s.
Crete Construction Company Ltd. reported in 31
DLR (AD) 138. Besides the defendant has
already filed the written statement against the
pleadings of the plaint taking clear defence. So,
when the defendant surrender jurisdiction to the
court instead of taking recourse of arbitration at
the first instance, so later filing application for
rejection of plaint is not entertainable, rather, it
becomes academic. We find support of our view
to the case of Seafarers Ino. through Shaw Wal-
lace Pakistan Ltd. vs. Province of East Pak
reported in 20 DLR (SC) 225.

Relevant Section: 7
12. 2019(1) LNJ 334 Corona Fashion Ltd. vs Milestone Clothing If anyone skims through the provisions of
Resources section 12 of the Arbitration Act, a primary
understanding s/he would have is that
section 12 of the Arbitration Act does not in
express terms gives an authority to a Court to
examine the existence of an arbitration
agreement. However, upon a minute reading of
the same, it appears to me that certain words and
expressions employed in it manifestly mean that
the Court must examine, at least the prima facie
existence of an arbitration agreement. The words
incorporated in section 12(1)- procedure for
appointing arbitrator; words in section 12(3)(a)
in an arbitration with a sole arbitrator); words in
section 12(3)(a)(i)- in case of arbitration other
than international commercial arbitration; words
in section 12(3)(a)(ii)- in case of international
commercial arbitration; words in section 12(4)
(c)- in case of arbitration other than international
commercial arbitration; words in section 12(4)
(d)- in case of international commercial
arbitration etc. are dearly indicative that the
Court shall prima facie examine the existence of
an arbitration clause. Further, throughout the
entire provisions of section 12 of the Arbitration
Act, the words 'party' & 'parties' have been
employed on a number of occasions and the
meaning of the word "party" is given in
section 2(g) of the Arbitration Act, which reads
as follows: "Party means a party to an arbitration
agreement".

If the terminologies "party" and "parties"

imprinted in section 12 of the Arbitration Act are
read with the above definition of "Party", it
becomes clear that section 12 of the Arbitration
Act will apply and an application thereunder can
be maintained only if a party to an "arbitration
agreement" invokes section 12 of the Arbitration
Act. What is an "arbitration agreement"--can be
found in section 2(n) of the Arbitration Act,
which reads as follows:
"Arbitration agreement" means an agreement by
the parties to submit to arbitration all or certain
disputes which have arisen or which may arise
between them in respect of a defined legal
relationship, whether contractual or not."

There is no provision of "mandatorily"

examining the issue of "existence of an
arbitration agreement"; rather, a "mandatory
prohibition" on the Court has been imposed by
section 11(6A) of the Indian Act, 1996 that the
Court shall not examine any issue other than the
issue of "the existence of an arbitration
agreement". Although, this type of explicit
provision has not been incorporated in section 12
of our Arbitration Act. there is difference
between our laws and Indian laws as to the
competency of the arbitral tribunal to rule on its
own jurisdiction, for, in our law the arbitral
tribunal has been given the power to examine the
issue as to "whether there is existence of a valid
arbitration agreement", but in the Indian law the
arbitral tribunal is competent to examine both the
aspects of the arbitration agreement i.e. (a) the
existence of the agreement and (b) the validity of
the said agreement.

The terms "arbitration agreement' and 'valid

arbitration agreement' are different expressions
and terminologies. Under section 12 of the
Arbitration Act, the Court will not venture to
determine a valid arbitration agreement, but will
satisfy itself that there is prima facie an
arbitration agreement to assume jurisdiction for
appointing arbitrator under section 12 of the
Arbitration Act. In other words, while the Court
is competent to carry out the necessary scrutiny
as to 'existence of an arbitration agreement', in an
appropriate application under section 17(a) of the
Arbitration Act, the arbitral tribunal will
determine the "existence of a valid arbitration
 agreement"

If the Court does not prima facie examine the

existence of an arbitration agreement and
appoints arbitrators) in all the applications filed
before their Lordship, then a situation will arise
which will be against public policy, which the
Legislature never intended. I am of the view that
the Legislature has not contemplated that the
Court would act mechanically by merely
referring the parties to an arbitration, whenever
any party would approach the Court.
If the Court, while assuming the jurisdiction of
the prima facie existence of an arbitration clause
for the purpose of appointing an arbitrator, the
same will not be in conflict with section 17(a) of
the Arbitration Act. Section 17 of our Arbitration
Act is to be interpreted in the manner that the
arbitral tribunal has the competence to rule on its
own jurisdiction when such issues arise before it.
This can happen when the parties have gone to
the arbitral tribunal without recourse to
section 12 of the Arbitration Act. In other words,
it would be incumbent upon the arbitral tribunal
to determine the issue when the parties
themselves constitute the tribunal without the
Court's intervention.

Relevant Section: 12, 17

13. 2019(2) LNJ 242 Frigo Mekanik Insaat Tesisat Ve Taahhut Whether any party to an arbitration agreement
Sanayi Ve Ticarest A.S. vs Bangladesh Milk can adjudicate upon their dispute through court,
Producers Co-Operative Union Limited by passing the arbitration tribunal-
(BMPCUL) When two or more parties voluntarily enter into
 an agreement to resolve any dispute among them
through arbitration, usually, no civil Court of our
jurisdiction or of foreign jurisdiction entertains
an application from any aggrieved party for
adjudication upon the dispute unless there exists
an exceptional circumstance warranting
interference of the civil Court for ends of justice.

Whether the provisions of the Arbitration Act are

applicable in an International Arbitration- If the
venue of the international commercial dispute is
in Bangladesh, the Arbitration Act shall be
applicable. In the absence of any provisions
regarding the venue/place of arbitration in the
contract, the provisions of the Arbitration
Contract, the provisions of the Arbitration Act
squarely be applied in any international
arbitration.

Under what circumstances the court can appoint

arbitrator- When any party to the arbitration
agreement fails to observe the procedures
regarding appointment of the arbitrator/s , this
court may appoint the arbitrator/s upon receiving
application from any party to the arbitration
agreement.

Relevant Section: 7A, 12

India: 9, 11
UK: 39, 16
14. 17 ADC (2020) 498 HRBC-INTRACO (BD) Vs. Government of the In the case, the Appellate Division defined
People’s Republic of Bangladesh and Ors International Commercial Arbitration in line
with section 2(c) of the Arbitration Act, 2001.
 It was held that, Upon going through the
aforesaid provision of law it appears that to
attract an international commercial arbitration at
least one of the parties to the arbitration is
required to be an individual who is a national or
resident of any country other than Bangladesh or
body corporate or a company or association or a
body of individuals incorporated in any country
other than Bangladesh.
15. 2019 (16) ALR 163 Executive Engineer, Roads and Highway Section 7 of the Act imposes a bar on the parties
Department (RHD) Vs. Md. Nurul Islam and to file a case before exhausting arbitration.
Ors.
The Appellate Division held that, “The
legislature has enacted the provision of bar in the
Arbitration Act, 2001 with a view to prevent the
parties to an arbitration agreement to start any
proceeding before any Court without exhausting
the provision of arbitration. The legislature,
therefore, in sub section (1) of the section 10 has
laid down the provision which has clearly and
positively provided that any objection regarding
the proceeding in the civil Court that must be
taken in the earliest opportunity before filling the
written statement in the suit. However, from the
facts of the instant case and from the pleadings
of the plaint it is crystal clear that there is no
legal impediment or any cogent reason to hold
that clause 23 of the Agreement stands as a bar
to file the instant suit for compensation.’
The AD also held that, “We have, therefore, no
hesitation to opine that 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.’

16. 23BLC (2018) 775 Jalalabad Gas Transmission and Distribution In the case, the Court widens the scope of section
System Limited Vs. Lafarge Surma Cement 43 of the Arbitration Act, 2001.
Indian Provision: Limited
Section 34 It was held that, “Further it appears that the
legislature did not provide any appeal against the
UK Provision: 66-71 arbitral award, which categorically indicates that
the grounds provided in section 43 of the
Year: 2018 Arbitration Act, 2001 is required to be
compulsorily followed by this court even any
sought of allegation of injustice, not covered by
the provided grounds, is taken as ground against
the said arbitral award.”

17. 70 DLR (2018) 783 Aminur Rashid Khan Vs. Bangladesh The aggrieved party can file an application
Agricultural Development Corporation before the HCD against an award of Arbitral
Tribunal.
Indian Provision:
Section 34 It was held that, “Further it appears that the
legislature did not provide any appeal against the
UK Provision: 66-71 arbitral award, which categorically indicates that
the grounds provided in section 43 of the
Year: 2018 Arbitration Act, 2001 is required to be
compulsorily followed by this court even any
sought of allegation of injustice, not covered by
the provided grounds, is taken as ground against
the said arbitral award.”
18. 71 DLR (2019) 577 Ghulam Mohiuddin Vs. Rokeya Din and Ors. The Court Held that, “There are two vital aspects
of the provisions of
Indian Provision: section 53 of the arbitration act. The first aspect
Section 42, is that through its non-obstante provisions, it
seeks to herald that irrespective of any
Section 12, 13 statements, stipulations and provisions
to the contrary made in the arbitration act, or any
UK Provision: 24 other law, the provisions of
(Power of Court to section 53 of the arbitration act shall
remove arbitrator) stand. the second aspect is if any party
to the arbitration agreement registers its name in
Year: 2019 a Court for any purpose, that Court shall assume
jurisdiction over the arbitration agreement and
arbitral agreement in whose connection a party
have moved before the Court.”

It was also held that, “From a minute reading of

the entire provisions of section 20 of the
arbitration act, my understanding is that sub-
section (1) of section 20 of the arbitration act is
the provision which enables and empowers the
High Court Division to entertain an application
from any party to the arbitration agreement
regarding jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal,
subject to fulfilling the conditions set out in sub-
section (2) of section 20 of the arbitration act.
Thus, a petitioner, who has invoked section 20 of
the arbitration act, is under a mandatory
obligation to satisfy the High Court Division that
all the conditions stipulated in clauses (a) to (c)
of section 20(2) of the arbitration act are satisfied
before entertaining or registering an application.
In other words, the power invested in the High
 Court Division for entertaining an application
under section 20 of the arbitration act is not an
independent power, for, it can be exercised by
the High Court Division only upon being
satisfied that (a) the determination of the
question is likely to produce substantial savings
in costs, (b) the application was submitted
without any delay and (c) there is good reason
why the matter should be decided by the Court.
Therefore, the High Court Division's power
having been circumscribed by section 20(2) of
the arbitration act, an application under section
20 of the arbitration act should be taken into
account by the Court only after being satisfied as
to fulfilling the conditions set out in clauses (a)
to (c) of section 20(2) of the arbitration act.
Additionally, the petitioner is also required to
state the reasons/arguments/grounds, based on
which the High Court Division would dispose of
the application.
19. 71 DLR (2019) 482 Cityscape Planners Ltd. Vs. Kari Abul Kashem It was held that, “It is clear from the provisions
of sub-sections (1) and (3) of section 10 of the
Indian Provision: arbitration act that there is no legal bar to initiate
Section 8 a suit before the Civil Court if any party to an
arbitration agreement or any person claiming
UK Provision: Section under him commences any legal proceedings
9 against any other party to the agreement or any
person claiming under him in respect of any
Year: 2019 matter agreed to be referred to arbitration, any
party to such legal proceedings may, at any time
before filing of written statement, apply to the
Court before which the proceedings are pending
to refer the matter to arbitration. But, we have
 already mentioned that here in the instant case,
the matter has been referred to arbitration.”
20. 2018 (13) ALR 187 Mizanur Rahman (Md.) Vs. Managing Director It was held that, “If sections 7 and 10 of the
and CEO, Agrani Bank Ltd. arbitration act are read together the intention of
Indian Provision: 8 the legislature becomes clearer that once the
parties to a contract agreed to settle their disputes
UK Provision: 9 that may arise out of execution of the contract
they must be encouraged and directed to follow
Year: 2018 the procedure what they agreed to, and the Court
should not proceed with any civil proceedings
commenced by one party against other party in
respect of any matter covered by such arbitration
agreement.”
21. 70 DLR (2018) 540 Unilever Bangladesh Limited It is not in dispute that section 7Ka of the
Vs. arbitration Act, 2001 empowers the Court to
Md. Bahauddin Sadi issue any order restraining any party for any
Indian Provision: 9 appropriate reason. But for invocation of this
provision prima facie case needs to make out for
UK Provision: 39 restraining other parties. In the instant case the
stipulation made in Clause 9(B) is very much
Year: 2018 clear and as such before issuing any order it was
obligatory upon the Court to look into the
stipulation made between the parties. It is
apparent that the opposite party meanwhile
issued notice under Clause 15 of the Arbitration
Agreement for resolution of the disputes and if
the petitioner disagrees in appointing Arbitrator,
the opposite party has got option to come to the
Court for appointment of Arbitrator for
resolution of disputes, if there be any.
22. 70 DLR (2018) 783 Aminur Rashid Khan Issue: Appointment of Arbitrator. Section 12
Vs.
Indian Provision: Bangladesh Agricultural Development The court held that, From the facts and
 section 11 Corporation
circumstances and in view of the provision of
UK Provision: Section section 12 as quoted herein above we are, of
16 the considered view that when a designated
person failed to appoint Arbitrator according
Year: 2018 to the Arbitration clause or when the party
failed to appoint the Arbitrator as per
agreement either of the party can invoked the
provision of section 12 of the Arbitration Act.
2001 for appointment of the Arbitrator.

On a meticulous scrutiny it appears that when

a party invoke the section 12 to appoint
Arbitrator through the Court, the Court can ask
for name of the Arbitrator from both the
parties or Court itself appoint the Arbitrator
but in the present case it appears that the
learned District Judge directed the Chairman
of BADC to appoint the Arbitrator as per
clause 40.1 of the agreement.

23. 72 DLR(AD) (2020) Government of Bangladesh and Ors. The Court held that, while passing the award, the
246 Vs. arbitrator committed misconduct.
Aminul Haq The Court held that, Misconduct is not a
Year: 2020 connotation of moral lapse. It comprises legal
misconduct which is complete if the Arbitrator
on the face of the award arrives at an
inconsistent conclusion even on his own finding
or arrives at a decision by ignoring very material
documents, which throw abundant light on the
controversy to arrive at a just and fair decision
and it is in this sense that arbitrator has
 misconducted the proceeding in the case. In this
case there can be no hesitation in setting aside
such award.
24. 72 DLR (2020) 459 Oram Limited Relevant section: 27
Vs.
Indian Provision: Reckitt Benckiser (Bangladesh) Limited Section 27 of the Arbitration Act provides that
Section 21 unless otherwise agreed by the parties, the
arbitral proceedings in respect of a particular
UK Provision: 34 dispute commences on the date on which a
request for that dispute to be referred to
Year: 2020 arbitration is received by the respondent. The
purpose of section 27 is to specify, in the
absence of the provision in the arbitration
agreement in that behalf, as to when an arbitral
proceedings in regard to a dispute commences,
this became relevant for the purpose of section
55 of the Act.
25. 73 DLR(AD) (2021) Saudi Arabian Airlines Corporation Arbitration has been widely recognized as an
277 Vs. efficient and effective mode of dispute
Saudi Bangladesh Services Company Ltd. settlement by the international community.
Indian Provision: Provisions of section 43 of the Arbitration Act
Section 34 have to given a strict interpretation and that the
effort should be made to uphold the award,
UK Provision: 66-71 unless it squarely falls within the ambit of the
said section. The award of the arbitrator is
Year: 2021 ordinarily final and conclusive as long as the
arbitrator was acted within his authority and
according to the principle of fair play. The Court
should not interfere with award unless award
portrays perversity and the same should not be
interfered with in a casual and cavalier manner.
Mr. Ajmalul Hossain relied on the case
Ssangyong Engineering & Construction Co. Ltd.

26. 73 DLR(AD) (2021) Roads and Highways Department Ministry of
370 Communication, Government of the People's
Republic of Bangladesh
Vs.
Startus Construction Company and Ors.
Vs. National High Ways Authority (C.A. No.
4779 of 2019). In the cited case, R.F. Nariman, J.
stated that, "however, when it comes to the
public policy of India argument based upon most
basic notions of justice, it is clear that this
ground can be attracted only in very exceptional
circumstances when the conscience of the Court
is shocked by infraction of fundamental notions
or principles of justice
Because the arbitration tribunal derives its
jurisdiction on and from the matter and issues
referred to it by the parties to the arbitration. It
has no power of its own to decide any matter
which is not referred to it or which has no basis
in their respective claims or counter claim, if
any. When there is no counter claim made by the
other party it clearly proves that it does not have
any claim of its own rather it simply defends
itself against the genuineness of the claim of the
claimant. And when no such counter claim is
being made the tribunal has the jurisdiction only
to see whether the claim of the claimant is
genuine/proved and can decide the matter only to
the said extent and not beyond that, not to speak
of giving award which has not been sought for
by the other party to the arbitration. If it does so,
then the same will be completely beyond the
jurisdiction. Jurisdiction goes to the root of the
matter and if any order is passed by any
authority without having jurisdiction such
order/award will have no other fate but to be
dismissed or shall become an illegal order/award
for want of jurisdiction.
 Moreover, from 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.
27. LEX/BDHC/0188/2018 Bangladesh Water Development Board Neither the law nor the contract agreement
Vs. prescribes any qualification that the arbitrator
Additional District Judge and Ors. has to be a different person depending on the
Indian Provision: nature of the dispute rather from the provision of
section 11 law it appears that Court has unfettered
discretion under Sub-section (4) of section 12 of
UK Provision: Section the Arbitration Act in the matter of appointment
16 of an arbitrator after hearing the parties. The
petitioner raised objection regarding appointment
Year: 2018 of an advocate as third arbitrator who will act as
Chairman of the tribunal since nature of the work
demands an arbitrator having technical
knowledge.

28. 17ADC(2020)427 Government of Bangladesh and Ors.

Vs. From the above cited case, it appears that if the
Indian Provision: 27 Aminul Haq award is otherwise patently illegal or void, it
would be open to the Court to consider the defect
UK Provision: 43 in the award suo motu and when the Courts act
 suo motu, the question of limitation does not
Year: 2020 arise, Moreover, when the Court acts suo motu
not no question regarding making of deposit can
arise. Therefore, we are of the view that though
the appellants did not comply with the provision
of section 33 of the Arbitration Act, the trial
Court was perfectly justified in not passing an
award because the award was patently illegal and
void.

29. 2018 (13) ALR 131 Md. Shah Alam With regard to the notice under section 14 of the
Vs. Arbitration Act 1940, it is well settled that the
The Executive Engineer, Gomati Water provision is mandatory. The provision is quite
Development Division, Comilla and Ors. unambiguous: [he arbitrator] "shall give notice in
writing to the parties of the making and signing
thereof- i.e. the award. In the facts of the instant
case we find nothing to suggest that this
provision of law was complied with. Hence, on
that ground alone the suit was liable to be
dismissed. The decision in the case of Dhaka
Leather Complex Ltd Vs Sikder Construction
Ltd. and another, reported in 8 LG (2011) AD
75, it was held as follows:

"... Knowledge of the filing of the award

acquired otherwise than in the way prescribed by
section 14(1) should be distinguished from the
service of notice under section 14(2). In the
absence of the service of notice the application
under section 14(2) for direction to cause the
award to be filed in court should be made within
three (3) years from the date when right to apply
accrues according to the residuary provision of
 Article 181 of the Limitation Act."
30. 2018 (13) ALR 66 Bangladesh Telecommunication Company Moreover, Section 54 of the Arbitration Act,
Limited (BTCL) 2001 clearly stipulates that the said Act shall not
Vs. apply to any other law making special provisions
Bangladesh Telecommunication Regulatory for arbitration as such Section 44 of the
Commission and Ors. Arbitration Act has no manner of application in
the case of a Decision given by the Dispute
Resolution Committee on 16.03.2015 under
Section 31(2) of the Bangladesh
Telecommunication Act, 2001.
31. 2018 (14) ALR 45 The Project Director, P.L. and Ors. It is a well settled principle of law that an award
Vs. passed by the Arbitrator cannot be interfered
A. Latiff Company Ltd. with unless there is an error of law apparent on
the face of it.

32. 2019 (15) ALR 33 Bangladesh Jute Mills Corporation Could not identify the principle
Vs.
District Judge, Dhaka and Ors.
33. 2019 (16) ALR 91 Southern Solar Power Ltd. and Ors. While interpreting the definition given in section
Vs. 2© of the Act, the Court held that, ‘It is the core
Indian Provision: Bangladesh Power Development Board and feature of the 'international commercial
Section 34 Ors. arbitration' that 'at least one of the parties' to the
arbitration agreement requires to be a foreign
UK Provision: 66-71 national/entity. It means that either all the parties
of an arbitration would be foreign
Year: 2019 nationals/entities or at least one party should be a
foreign national/entity to come within the
purview of the expression "international
commercial arbitration". However, this Section
does not impose a condition that in order to
constitute an 'international commercial
arbitration', the place of arbitration should be in a
foreign country”

In view of section 42 of the Act, the Court held

that, “From the expressions "international
commercial arbitration held in Bangladesh", it
may reasonably be inferred that the 'international
commercial arbitration' may be held both inside
and outside of Bangladesh, because by using the
words ".....held in Bangladesh" after the
expression "foreign commercial arbitration", the
Legislature apparently meant that "international
commercial arbitration" may also be held outside
Bangladesh and, in that event, the said
"international commercial arbitration" may be
termed as "foreign arbitration", because although
there is no definition of 'foreign arbitration' in
the Arbitration Act, however, from a conjoint
reading of the expressions discussed
hereinbefore, all that I find about the foreign
arbitration' is that an 'international commercial
arbitration', the seat of which is outside
Bangladesh, is to be meant as 'foreign
arbitration'. The basis of my above opinion is
that the Preamble of this latest law does not
merely vocalize about 'international commercial
arbitration' and foreign arbitral award', rather the
Legislature was mindful to provide the
definitions of the aforesaid phraseologies which
have been engraved in Section 2(c) & 2(k) of the
Arbitration Act respectively”