AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
1 paragraphs · 111 words
Sulaiman, J.—This is an application in revision from an order setting aside an award on the ground that the arbitrator was guilty of legal misconduct inasmuch as he had made confidential enquiries behind the back of the plaintiff. It is well settled that, unless expressly authorized to do so, an arbitrator cannot be allowed to make private enquiries and allow himself to be influenced by evidence which either party has no opportunity to check or meet: Daya Kishen v. Dharam Das [1907] 4 A.L.J. 159. The reference to arbitration directed him to make "enquiries," which cannot mean secret or private enquiries. The application has no force and is dismissed with costs.