Judgment text0% read
Browse the contents
Read the full judgment on the Supreme Court website ↗
Case information
| Court | Supreme Court of Bangladesh — High Court Division |
|---|---|
| Case reference | First Appeal 113/2007 |
| Case-reference year | 2007 |
| Case type | First Appeal |
| Court website upload date | 17-JUN-26 |
The case-reference year is not the judgment year. The court website upload date is not a judgment date.
Official index description (excerpt)
Source: Supreme Court official index.
The alleged arbitration is stated to have taken place in 1996, when the Arbitration Act, 1940 was in force. Under the scheme of the Arbitration Act, 1940, as under the Arbitration Act, 2001, the existence of a valid arbitration agreement is the sine qua non for commencement of any arbitration proceeding. It is a settled principle of law that no arbitration can lawfully be initiated, conducted, or enforced in the absence of a valid and binding arbitration agreement between the parties. In this regard, section 161 of the Contract Act, 1872 is directly relevant, which provides that if, by the default of the bailee, the goods are not returned, delivered or tendered at the proper time, he is responsible to the bailor for any loss, destruction or deterioration of the goods from that time. Therefore, under Sections 161 and 73 of the Contract Act, compensation for the wrongful retention or non-return of goods or share certificates should be determined by reference to their value on the due-return date, together with lawful interest, rather than by reference to any subsequent increase in
[Excerpt ends; the complete index description is retained in the catalogue JSON.]