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

1924 Supreme(All) 240

CECIL HENRY WALSH, RYVES
Gobind Singh – Appellant
Versus
Bhirgunath Singh – Respondent


JUDGMENT

1. This is a plain case. An attempt was made in the lower Court to destroy the award by alleging misconduct against the arbitrators in the sense that they did not give the parties, or one of the parties, or some of the parties, proper hearing, or adequate notice of the date of the hearing of the matter in which they were engaged. There are only two ways in which you can get rid of an award--either by getting it set aside in accordance with the provisions of para graphs 15 and 16 of the Code, in which case it is the duty of the Judge to refuse to file the award and grant a decree in the terms of the award; or if the learned Judge to whom application is made commits material irregularity in the course of the hearing, when he has the parties before him to decide whether or not the award filed was objectionable, then an application in revision may be made to this Court. These matters are really so elementary that it is hardly necessary to repeat them but the distinction, so far as the powers of the High Court are concerned, cannot be better expressed than in the head note in the well known Privy Council case, Ghulam Khan v. Mohammad Hassan 29 C. 167 : 6 C.W.N. 226 : 29 I.A. 51:

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