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

2015 Supreme(Ker) 930

A.HARIPRASAD
INDIA CEMENTS CAPITAL LIMITED – Appellant
Versus
WILLIAM – Respondent


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
DR. GEORGE ABRAHAM
SRI.SREELAL N.WARRIER, SRI.P.S.SREEDHARAN PILLAI, SRI.T.K.SANDEEP, SRI.ARJUN SREEDHAR, SRI.JOSEPH GEORGE(MULLAKKARIYIL), SRI.ARUN KRISHNA DHAN

ORDER

A. HARIPRASAD, J.

An award made in favour of the revision petitioner under the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short, "the Act") was sought to be enforced under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short, "the Code"). At the instance of a third party to the arbitral proceedings, the court held that the award is a nullity and hence unenforceable. Insofar as the revision petitioner is concerned, that was a bolt from the blue. Feeling aggrieved, the revision petitioner challenges the order on E.A.No.379 of 2013 in E.P.No.412 of 2011 in Arbitration O.P.No.10 of 2008 before the District Court, Ernakulam on the ground that invocation of Section 47 of the Code by the court below was erroneous and opposed to law. According to the revision petitioner, except by way of taking a recourse against the award under Section 34 of the Act, neither a party to the award nor a non party can take a short cut under Section 47 of the Code to challenge the virus of the award.

2. Heard Dr. George Abraham, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri. Sreelal N. Warrier, learned counsel for the first respondent.

3. Brief facts relevant for appreciating the rival conten




































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

V. K. Kannadasan S/o. Karuppaswami VS Radhakrishnan S/o. Velappan - 2018 0 Supreme(Ker) 391: This case is referenced as one where "This Court had occasion to consider the issue," indicating it was previously considered or followed on the issue without any negative treatment indicators such as overruled, reversed, criticized, or questioned. No keywords suggest bad law.

Rafique Bibi (D) By Lrs. VS Sayed Waliuddin (D) By Lrs. - 2003 6 Supreme 300: States a general legal principle ("A decree suffering illegality or irregularity of procedure cannot be termed inexecutable by executing Court") with no treatment keywords like followed, distinguished, overruled, etc. It appears as a standalone proposition, suggesting neutral status.

Brahmdeo Chaudhary VS Rishikesh Prasad Jaiswal - 1997 2 Supreme 660: Articulates a procedural rule regarding strangers to a decree under Order XXI Rule 99 CPC, with no treatment indicators (e.g., followed, overruled). Presented as authoritative without negative qualification, indicating neutral or positive standing.

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