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

1939 Supreme(Mad) 54

ABDUR RAHMAN
P. L. S. S. Ramanathan Chettiar – Appellant
Versus
K. M. V. V. Kumarappa Chettiar – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Abdur Rahman, J.

1. These appeals arise out of an order passed by the Subordinate Judge of Sivaganga on two applications, one made on behalf of the plaintiff and the other on behalf of the defendants under Order 23, Rule 3, Civil P.C. with the allegations that the parties had referred the matter in suit, which was one for dissolution of partnership and accounts, to two arbitrations which resulted in two awards. The earlier which held the plaintiff to be entitled to recover Rs. 30,000 was pleaded on behalf of the defendants and the later under which the defendants were found to be liable to the extent of Rs. 52,000 was pleaded by the plaintiff. Since it has been settled by a Full Bench of this Court in Subbaraju v. Venkataramaraju A.I.R. (1928) Mad. 1025 that where in a suit parties have referred their difference to arbitration without an order of the Court and an award is made, a decree in terms of the award can be passed by the Court under Order 23, Rule 3, Civil P.C. the only question for decision in this case is whether the subject-matter of the suit had been so adjusted between the parties. It was asserted on behalf of the plaintiff that, although the matter was referred








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