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

1991 Supreme(Mad) 217

A.R.LAKSHMANAN
Union of India – Appellant
Versus
P. Anantharam, Chief Engineer (Mes) and Another – Respondent


Appearing Advocates:C. Krishan, T. R. Mani, For T. M. Hariharan, Advocates.

Judgment :-

Lakshmanan, J.

This petition is filed under Section 14(2) of the Arbitration Act to direct the arbitrator to file the original award dated 27.4.1988 into the court alongwith the entire papers and documents and to pass a decree in terms of the award for Rs. 2, 83, 177/- together with interest at 18% per annum from the date of award till payment and for costs.

x x x x x

2. I proceed to deal with only on the question of law in regard to maintainability of this petition in this court.

3. I have heard the arguments of Mr. C. Krishnan, learned counsel for the Union India, and Mr. T. R. Mani, learned Senior Advocate, on behalf of second respondent. According to the learned counsel for the second respondent, the original petition filed by the petitioner on the Original Side of this court is not maintainable and this court cannot receive the award since according to the learned counsel, the arbitration reference relates to the matter not fall within the territorial jurisdiction of this court. In support of his contention Mr. T. R. Mani, learned Senior Advocate, has invited my attention to the following three decisions. The leading judgment on this point is reported in 1950 (1) MLJ



















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