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

1943 Supreme(Mad) 35

HORWILL
Palaparthi Venkataramayya – Appellant
Versus
Duggina Papayya – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Horwill, J.

1. The matter in dispute in O.S. No. 182 of 1939 on the file of the District Munsiff of Nandalur was referred to five arbitrators. They were given time for the filing of the award and that time was extended frequently, until at last, on the 26th April, 1941, the award was filed by the fifth arbitrator and signed by three other arbitrators. That was the last day on which the Court sat before the summer vacation. The Judge ordered the suit to be called again on the 11th June, 1941, two days after the reopening of the Court. On that day, as no petition had been filed to set aside the award, the suit was decreed in terras of the award. This revision petition has been filed by the defendants, complaining that the provisions of the Arbitration Act were not complied with, in that they were given no notice either by the arbitrators or by the Court, that they had no opportunity to file objections, and that the decree is therefore a nullity.

2. The plaintiff raises a preliminary objection that no revision lies, relying on Ghulam jilani v. Mahammad Hassan (1901) 12 M.L.J. 77 : L.R. 29 IndAp 51 : I.L.R. 29 Cal. 167 (P.C.). That was a case where an objection to the award was t







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