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

1959 Supreme(All) 171

V.D.BHARGAVA
AHMAD ULLAH – Appellant
Versus
HAFIZULLAH – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Aqiq Hasan, G.P.BHARGAVA, IQBAL AHMED, S.N.KACKAR, S.Sadiq Ali

V. D. BHARGAVA, J.

( 1 ) THIS is an application in revision. Originally it was filed as a second appeal, but a learned brother of mine came to the conclusion that no appeal lay. He, however permitted this appeal to be treated as a revision and, therefore, it is -being decided as a revision.

( 2 ) A preliminary objection has been taken by the learned counsel for the opposite party that no revision lies to this Court against an order refusing to record an award and reliance was placed on a Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Gobind Das v. Mt. Indrawati, AIR 1938 All 557.

( 3 ) BEFORE I deal with the preliminary objection certain facts are necessary. It appears that there was a criminal case pending under Ss. 147/352 and 504,. P. C. read with Section 106, Cr. P. C. for a long time. Some other disputes about cattle trough, door, nabdan, neeb tree, Nesuba etc. also arose between the parties. The parties by an agreement dated 8th February, 1950 referred their disputes to arbitration of certain persons. The arbitrators gave their award on the 20th of february, 1950. An objection was taken under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act that this award should not be recorded as the re





























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