SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1998 Supreme(SC) 1144

SUJATA V.MANOHAR, B.N.KIRPAL
F. C. I. REPRESENTED BY MANAGING DIRECTOR – Appellant
Versus
A. M. AHMED and CO. THROUGHMD – Respondent


( 1 ) LEAVE granted.

( 2 ) THE arbitration award, in the present case, pertaining to the disputes between the appellants and the respondents, was published on 10-4-1992 and was filed in the Court of Subordinate Judge at Tuticorin on 30-6-1992. The notice of filing of this award was served on the appellants on 18-7-1992.

( 3 ) THE appellants moved the High Court contending that the Subordinate court at Tuticorin was a court without jurisdiction for the purposes of filing the award. Ultimately, the Division Bench of the Madras High Court, by its judgment and order dated 23-3-1993, held that since the arbitrator had been appointed under the orders of the High Court, no other court had any jurisdiction over the arbitration or in respect of the award therein. The High court, however, in addition, said that in any event, under Section 24 of the code of Civil Procedure, the Court had the power to order withdrawal of the proceedings from the Subordinate Court at Tuticorin to the High Court. The high Court, thereupon, directed that the award and the proceedings in the subordinate Court, Tuticorin be withdrawn from that court to the High Court for disposal in accordance with law. Thereafter





Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top