1951 Supreme(Mad) 9
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Mr. Justice Govinda Menon, and Mr. Justice Chandra Reddi, JJ.
Dinasari Limited.
Versus
Hussain Ali and Sons.
A.A.O.No. 232 of 1950.
Decided On : 04 January 1951
Advocates:
S.V. Narayana Aiyar for Appellant.
N. Rajagopalan, V. Srinivasan and T.R. Ramachandran for Respondents.
Scope of the provisions of section 34.
Headnote:Arbitration Act, 1940-Section 34 - Scope of the provisions of section 34.
Govinda Menon, J.-The written agreement on which the appellant relies is not admitted by the respondent. It is not an agreement as contemplated under section 2 (a) of the Indian Arbitration Act. It has been held by Kania, J. (as he then was) in Shriram Hanutram v. Mohanlal and Co.,1 that the existence of an admitted agreement is a necessary pre-requisite for an arbitrator undertaking to decide the dispute. Here in this case the written agreement is denied and it is not open therefore to the arbitrators to decide whether the agreement as such exists or not. If the arbitrators have no jurisdiction to decide that point, it necessarily follows that they are not competent to function as well. In such circumstances the suit cannot be stayed under section 34 of the Indian Arbitration Act. The decision of the lower Court is correct and the appeal is dismissed with costs.
V.P.S. ----- Appeal dismissed.
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
