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

1959 Supreme(MP) 91

High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
Shiv Dayal Shrivastava, J.
NATHURAM GIRWARCHAND - Appellant
Versus
BAIJNATH MANGAKHANLAL - Respondents
Civil Revn. 45 Of 1957
Decided On : 03/26/1959

Advocates Appeared:
Kishanlal Batham, Ram Krishna Dixit

Article 178 of the Limitation Act does not apply when an award is filed by an arbitrator.

Headnote:

Limitation Act - Arbitration - The court held that Article 178 of the Limitation Act does not apply when an award is filed by an arbitrator, as the article applies to applications made by parties seeking relief from the court against other parties. The Arbitration Act of 1940 does not require any 'application' to be filed by an arbitrator.

Fact of the Case:

The dispute between the parties was referred to arbitration. The arbitrators filed their award in the court, and the petitioners objected, claiming that the filing of the award was barred by time.

Finding of the Court:

The court overruled the objection, stating that Article 178 of the Limitation Act does not apply when an award is filed by an arbitrator.

Issues: The main issue was whether the award filed by the arbitrators was barred by time and could not be acted upon by the Civil Court.

Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted Article 178 of the Limitation Act and concluded that it does not apply to arbitrators filing the award, as it applies to applications made by parties seeking relief from the court against other parties.

Final Decision: The revision was dismissed with costs.

SHIV DAYAL SHRIVASTAVA, J.

( 1 ) IN this revision the question is whether the award filed by the arbitrators was barred by time and, therefore, could not be acted upon by the Civil Court before which it was filed. Certain dispute between the parties in this revision was referred to arbitration on 7-1-1955. The arbitrators filed their award in the court of Civil judge Second Class, Bhind on 8-10-1955. Inter alia the objection of the petitioners nathuram and Shrilal was that the filing of the award was barred by time and therefore it should be set aside. The objection was overruled by the trial Judge.

( 2 ) IN this revision Shri Ramkrishan Dixit learned counsel for the petitioners relies on Article 178 of the Limitation Act. In my opinion that Article does not apply where an award is filed by an arbitrator himself. When an arbitrator makes an application he does not seek any relief against any party. The articles in the schedule of the Limitation Act apply to applications which are made by the parties seeking relief from the Court against some other parties. In fact the Arbitration Act of 1940 does not require any 'application' to be filed by an arbitrator. In Sheodutt v. Vishnudutta, ILR 1955 Nag 224: ( (S) AIR 1955 Nag 116) it is held that Article 178 has no application to an arbitrator filing the award. See also the case of lachhmi Prasad v. Govardhan Das, AIR 1948 Pat 171.

( 3 ) THIS revision has no substance and it is, therefore, dismissed with costs.


.

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 Back to top