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

1953 Supreme(Raj) 187

WANCHOO, DAVE
Chitra Prakash Film Exchange – Appellant
Versus
Motilal – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Shyambehari Lal, for Appellant

WANCHOO, C.J.—This is an appeal by the defendant under sec. 9 of the Arbitration Act.

2. A suit was filed by the plaintiff respondent against the defendant appellant and the 1st of March, 1953 was fixed for filing for written-statement. On that date the defendant appellant appeared and asked for time to file the written-statement and time was granted to him. Then 1st of April was fixed for filing the written-statement and on that date again defendant appellant for time for filing the written-statement and the next date fixed was 7th April, 1953. On that date, however, the defendant appellant instead of filing the written-statement filed an application under sec. 34 of the Arbitration Act for stay of proceedings.

3. The main question which arose for determination in this case was whether the defendant could take advantage of sec. 34 of the Arbitration Act. The section provides that an application under it has to be filed before filing the written-statement or taking any other step in the proceedings. In this case no written-statement was filed up to the 7th April. But the question is whether the defendant appellant had taken any other step in the proceedings. We are of opinion that th








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