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

1949 Supreme(Mad) 425

KRISHNASWAMI NAYUDU
Subramanian (Minor) – Appellant
Versus
M. P. Vasudevan Chettiar – Respondent


Advocates:
S. Ramachandra Aiyar for Petitioners.
K.V.Srinivasa Aiyar for Respondents.

Judgment

The question that arises for determination in this revision petition is whether in a petition filed by the arbitrators under section 14 of the Indian Arbitration Act (X of 1940) for filing an award, persons who were eo nomine, not parties to either the agreement of reference or to the award could be added as necessary parties under Order 1, rule 10, Civil Procedure Code. On a reference made by three brothers, Subbaratham Chettiar, Vasudevan Chettiar and Krishnaswami Chettiar to two arbitrators regarding the partition of their family properties the arbitrators gave an award. The award was filed by the arbitrators under section 14 of the Indian Arbitration Act in O.P. No. 90 of 1947 on the file of the Subordinate Court of Trichinopoly. Subbaratham Chettiar remained ex parte in the arbitration proceedings. He became insolvent since the filing of O.P. No. 90 of 1947 and the Official Receiver of Trichinopoly was brought on record as representing his estate. Subbaratham Chettiar filed O.P. No. 124 of 1947 in the same Court for setting aside the award on certain grounds. O.S. No. 3 of 1949 was filed on behalf of the minor sons of Subbaratham Chettiar, who are the petitioners befor














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