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

1966 Supreme(AP) 75

VENKATESAM, BASI REDDY, GOPALA KRISHNAN NAIR
MATTAPALLI VENKATARATHNAM – Appellant
Versus
MATTAPALLI CHALAMIAH – Respondent


CHANDRASEKHARA SASTRY, J.

( 1 ) THE determination of this appeal involves important questions of law, one of which is whether an award passed after the coming into force of the Arbitration act, 1940 requires to be registered under section 17 (1) (b) of the Indian registration Act. No doubt, on this question there is already a decision of a bench of this High Court of which one of us (Chandrasekhara Sastry, J.) was a member, in Srinivasa Rao v. Narsimha Rao , wherein, it is held that such an award requires to be registered and would be inadmissible in evidence unless it be registered. But, Sri Narasaraju. the learned Counsel for the appellants sought to argue that the said decision requires reconsideration as several aspects were not fully considered when that decision was rendered. On the other hand mr, Parthasarathi, the learned Counsel for the respondents, stated that both on principle and on authority, even an award passed after the coming into force of the Arbitration Act. 1940, requires to be registered under section 17 (1) (b) of the Indian Registration Act as even such an award "purports" to create or declare rights in immovable property, if the award dealt with immovable pr




















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