Malpati Sevasangh vs Gujarat State Khadi And Village ... on 15 April, 2004
"2. It is settled position of law that where in a suit the parties have referred their difference to the 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 of the Civil Procedure Code (vide Chambasappa Gurushantappa Hiremath v. Basadingayya Gokarmaya Hiremath [1927] 51 I.L.R. 903 and Modi Narandas Chhaganlal v. Jamnadas Maneklal [1969] 10 Guj. L.R. 210) Mr. Shah, learned Advocate for respondent Nos. 1(b) to 1(h) does not dispute this proposition of law. Mr. Shah has, however, tried to support the judgment of the learned District Judge on the ground that under proviso to Section 47 of the Arbitration Act the Court can accept the compromise only if the consent is given by the parties at the time when the Court is called upon to consider whether the award should be accepted as an adjustment or a compromise. He also supported the view of the learned District Judge that inasmuch as no permission was granted to Ajubai to sign this award as alleged by the plaintiff, the agreement, if at all there was any, is voidable as prescribed under Order 32 Rule 7(2) of the Civil Procedure Code, and since Ajubai avoided the agreement, the trial court was justified in dismissing the application of the petitioner herein, who was the original plaintiff.