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

1966 Supreme(AP) 149

S.OBUL REDDY
Puranam Venkata Lakshmamma – Appellant
Versus
T. J. Ratnam – Respondent


S. OBUL REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner seeks to revise the order of the 3rd Additional District Munsif. Vijayawada, returning the plaint in O. S. 525 64 on his file under Section 14 of the Arbitration Act. What the District Munsif has done in this case is this. An application was filed by the arbitrators under Section 14 of the Act and the Court directed the application to be registered as a suit and it was numbered as O. S. 526/64. The learned Munsif felt that the suit O. S. 525/64) is misconceived and directed the return of the plaint for following the procedure laid down in Section 14 of the Arbitration Act It is not known when it was first numbered as an O. P. and again under orders of the Court when it was registered as a suit and why the District Munsif should think it is misconceived and ask the petitioner to follow once again the procedure laid down in Section 14 of the Arbitration Act Under Rule 5 of the Rules framed under the Arbitration Act applications made under Section 14 of the Act shall be numbered and registered as suits Therefore what was done by the Munsif viz. , registering the application as a suit is in accordance with what is laid down in rule 5 The learned co


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