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

1990 Supreme(Cal) 118

PABITRA KUMAR BANERJEE, G.N.RAY
NITYA RANJAN CHATTERJEE – Appellant
Versus
CHITTA RANJAN CHATTERJEE – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
PRAFULLA KUMAR ROY, SYMA PRASANNA ROY CHAUDHURY

G. N. RAY, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment passed by the learned Assistant District Judge, 2nd Court, Hooghly in other Suit No. 113 of 1987. By the aforesaid judgment, the learned trial Judge has allowed the application made by the defendant No. 1 Chitta Ranjan Chatterjee for acceptance of the award passed by the Arbitrators, respondents Nos. 2 to 4 and to make the award a decree of the Court under S. 14 of the Arbitration Act.

( 2 ) IT is an admitted case of the parties that the said Chitta Ranjan Chatterjee and the defendant No. 1 appellant Nityaranjan Chatterjee are brothers and in order to settle their disputes, they appointed the said arbitrators. The arbitrators thereafter passed an award and they also filed the said award in the court with a prayer for passing the decree in terms of the award. After the award was filed in the court, the summons was issued to the parties to the award and the defendant No 1 prayed for accepting the award and to make it a decree of the court, but the defendant No. 2 contended that the award was improper and there was misconduct on the part of the arbitrators. Accordingly, the award should be set aside.

( 3 ) FOR appreci




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