Govinda Menon, J.-While not disagreeing with the lower Court regarding its conclusion on issues 1 and 2 decided in favour of the respondents, we think that this appeal can be disposed of on a much shorter ground. The learned Subordinate Judge framed an additional issue as to whether the plaintiff was entitled to maintain the suit pleading the illegality and invalidity of the awards and decrees in O.S. No. 30 of 1942, O.S. No. 297 of 1942 and O.S. No. 701 of 1943. On that issue, the learned Judge after a consideration of sections 31, 32 and 33 of the Indian Arbitration Act of 1940 concluded that the suit was not maintainable. In the view of the learned Judge, the plaintiff was agitating a question which she ought to have agitated by means of the procedure laid down under the provisions of the Indian Arbitration Act. In fact, she is agitating the existence and validity of the reference to the arbitration and the award passed in pursuance of such arbitration. The lower Court relied upon the decision in Rashid Jamshed Sons &38; Co. v. Moolchand Jothajee1, which has been confirmed in Letters Patent Appeal by a Bench of this Court in Moolchand Jothajee v. Rasheed Jamshed Sons &38; Co.2.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document