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

1965 Supreme(AP) 92

NARASIMHAM
Vissamseth Chandra Narasimham – Appellant
Versus
Ramdayal Rameswaralal – Respondent


NARASIMHAM, J.

( 1 ) THIS is a petition seeking a revision of the order of the District Munsif, Vijayawada, in O. S. 793 of 1955 which is a proceeding for passing a decree in terms of the award filed under Section 14 (2) of the Arbitration Act, 1940. It is seen that under Rule 5 of the rules framed under the Arbitration Act of 1940, applications under Section 14 of the Act shall be numbered and registered as suits and that explains the order under revision having been passed in O. S. 793 of 1955.

( 2 ) THE learned Munsif rejected the application in the view that that Court has no jurisdiction to pass a decree in terms of the award. The other points, which fell for determination in the proceeding, were deemed unnecessary in view of the said finding.

( 3 ) THE question that arises in this revision petition is whether the view taken by the learned Munsif that the Vijayawada Court has no jurisdiction is correct. Sri Parthasarathi for the petitioner has contended that the learned Munsif failed to evercise the jurisdiction vested in the Munsif.

( 4 ) THE facts relevant to this question about which there is no dispute are these: Chandra Narasimham, the petitioner herein, contracted to sel













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