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

1981 Supreme(AP) 107

Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : A.SEETHARAM REDDY, CHENNAKESAVA REDDY
V.Anjaneya Setty - Appellant
Versus
M.G.Brothers - Respondent
C.M.A.Nos.503/77. & 202/78
Decided On : 04-17-81
Advocates Appeared :
.

Headnote:ARBITRATION ACT, Award of arbitrator - Setting aside of award - When can be done - Principles - Stated.

       Held: The arbitration proceedings should not be set aside on the ground of non-observance of the highly technical was of procedure and rules of evidence unless there is something radically wrong and vicious.

       Non-examination of witnesses is not judicial misconduct if the arbitrator is shown to have taken into account the statements and admissions made by the parties.

       Civil Court cannot get into the merits of the decision arrived at by the arbitrators and set aside the award merely because by a process of inference and argument it may be demonstrated that the arbitrator had committed some mistakes in his conclusions.

       As the parties choose their arbitrator, they, cannot, when the award is exfacis good, object to the decision either upon the law or the facts.

       Omission to file depositions or other documents including the notes prepared by the arbitrators for their assistance, does not affect the validity of the award.

       An award should not be set aside at the instance of one of the parties who must be held to have known the general course of procedure and who did not make any protest until after the marking of the award with the terms of which the party was not satisfied.

       The non-representation of a party at arbitration proceedings through went of formal notice of the proceedings is no ground for challenging award when that party had actual knowledge of the proceedings.

       The Court has no jurisdiction to investigate into the merits of the case and to examine the DOCUMENTARY and oral evidence on the record for the purpose of finding out whether or not the arbitrator has committed an error of law;

       It will not be open to the defendant to raise the objection that certain claims which were time barred have been adjudicated in the award for the first time in the Civil Court when the award is sought to be made a rule of Court and a fortiori in the appellate Court.

       C.M.As. Dismissed.

SEETHARAMA REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THESE two appeals arise out of a common judgment and decree passed in O. S. No. 17 of 1972 and O. P. No. 66 of 1972 by the learned Subordinate Judge, Adoni, decreeing the suit with costs and dismissing the O. P. with costs. So they could be disposed of by a common judgment

( 2 ) THE plaintiff in O. S. No. 17 of 1972 is the respondent in O. P. No. 66 of 1972; and the defendant in O. S. No. 17 of 1972 and M/s. Vitta Dodda Hanumanthappa Subbaiah Setty and Co. , represented by the then partner Vitta Anjinaiah are the petitioners in O. P. No. 66 of 1972.

( 3 ) THE suit is for passing of a decree in terms of the award of the arbitrators with necessary modifications. Briefly, the plaint averments are: The plaintiff M/s. M. G. Brothers, is a partnership firm carrying on business inter alia in decorticating and crushing of groundnut seeds under the name and style of M. G. Brothers Oil Mills at Yemmiganur, and M. R. Ganganna is a partner therein. The defendant was originally a partner of M/s. Vitta Dodda Hanumanthappa Subbaiah Setty and Co. of Bellery having its plant at Adoni. The said firm, during its dealings with the plaintiff, became indebted in a sum of Rs. 10,377-83 p. to the plaintiff. Vitta Anjinaiah Setty, the defendant, came out of the said firm and started doing business under the name and style of Vitta Dodda Hanumanthappa Anjanaiah Setty. The amount due to the plaintiff-firm by Vitta Dodda Hanumanthappa Subbaiah Setty and Co. was taken over by the defendant and the defendant undertook to discharge the said liability. Apart from that, on his own ac-count, the defendant became indebted to the plaintiff in a sum of Rs. 8,167. 06 p. in respect of purchase of groundnut oil. The defendant also became indebted to the plaintiff in a sum of Rs. 15,251-71 p. being the toss incurred by the plaintiff on account of the despatch of a wagon load of groundnut oil made on the instructions of the defendant. In spite of repeated demands, the defendant failed to pay the said amounts together with interest thereon. Since disputes arose in respect of these transactions, the matter was referred to arbitration after several unsuccessful efforts to resolve their differences by mediators. Both the parties appointed Sri Mothilal Mavji, Sri Gummandmal Lalchand and Sri T. V. Vasantha Guptha as their arbitrators. A mutchilika was also executed by the plaintiff and the defendant in favour of the three arbitrators. The arbitrators duly entered on the reference, and, after due inquiry, scrutiny of the accounts and also statement of accounts filed by the parties, and after due consideration, made the award by signing it on 23-11-1971. As per the award, payment of all outstanding accounts, interest and other payments ordered, was to be made within 30 days; and in case of default, the erring party should pay interest at 15 per cent per annum from the date of the award. At any rate, the payment should not be delayed beyond 60 days. As per the award, the defendant has to pay a sum of Rs. 27,920-91 p. as detailed below : ??? (I) Since the defendant failed to pay within the stipulated date, he is liable to pay interest amounting to Rs. 1,262. 00 from 23-12-1971 to 10-4-1972. Thus, the defendant is liable to pay, in all, a sum of Rs. 29,182-91 p. The arbitrators, suo motu, sent the award to the Court; and the notice sent by the Court on the filing of the award into Court by the arbitrators was served on the plaintiff on 5-2-1972. The plaintiff may be permitted to make necessary representations to modify or correct the award. He thus prayed to make the said award a decree of the Court.

( 4 ) THE averments of the defendant in the written statement briefly are: The suit is not maintainable as the defendant denies that the plaintiff-partnership firm is registered and that M. R. Ganganna is a partner therein. The arbitration agreement was between M/s. M. G. Brothers Oil Mills on one part and M/s. Vitta Dodda Hanumanthappa Anjaniah Setty on th










































































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 Back to top