Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 17 (0.45 seconds)
Documents citing Manilal Motilal vs Gokaldas Rowji on 20 July, 1920

Babubhai Tansukhlal vs Madhavji Govindji And Co. on 12 December, 1930

In the case of Manilal Motilal v. Gokaldas Rowji (1920) I.L.R. 45 Bom. 245, s.c. 22 Bom. L.R. 1048, which the learned Judge himself appears to have made the basis of his decision, it was held that an award could be regarded as an adjustment of the suit under Order XXIII, Rule 3, and the terms of that rule make it clear that the Court must first be in a position to hold that the award amounted to a lawful agreement or compromise.
Bombay High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

Amar Chand Chamaria vs Banwari Lall Rakshit And Ors. on 24 November, 1921

8. On this I observe that Mr. Justice Fawcett in the case already cited says: Manilal Motilal v. Gopaldas Rowji 59 Ind. Cas. 685 45 B. 245 : 22 Bom. L.R. 1048. "No doubt the words 'other law for the time being in force are inappropriate for covering a provision of the Code itself, such as Order XXIII, Rule 3. But the Legislature in enacting Section 89 probably had not that particular rule...in their mind, and had no intention of affecting it one way or the other."
Calcutta High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 15 - Full Document

Belagoduhal Virabhadra Gowd vs Kalyan Gangamma And Ors. on 24 November, 1925

L.R. 1048 and the dissenting Judge, Mukerji, J., who held that an award was not an adjustment by an agreement of parties within the meaning of Order XXIII, Rule 4 did not have his attention called to the decision of this Court which followed Manilal Motilal v. Gokaldas Rowji 59 Ind. Cas. 53 : 45 B. 245 : 22 Bom. L.R. 1048. Where the parties voluntarily refer their disputes to the decision of mediators without the intervention of a Court and their Vakils present the award of the arbitrators for acceptance by the Court, the proper view appears to be that such an award operates as a compromise of the dispute, and a consent decree may be passed in its terms. In the present case there is all the less reason for not applying the cases which have held differently for the reason that when this reference to Arbitration was made there was no pending suit and, therefore, those cases, which held that reference to arbitration during the pendency of a suit without the intervention of the Court is not valid, do not strictly apply. For these reasons, I would dismiss the appeal and confirm the lower Court's decree with costs.
Madras High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Dinkarrai Lakshmiprasad vs Yeshwantrai Hariprasad on 27 March, 1929

28. The Full Bench followed an earlier decision of our High Court to which I have already referred, namely, Manilal's case (3). It was held in that case that where parties to a suit refer their disputes to arbitration without the intervention of the Court and an award is made, an application to pass a decree in terms of the award is an application to record a compromise within the meaning of this rule. With regard to this decision the learned commentator of Mulla's Code of Civil Procedure observes:
Bombay High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Tara Pada Ray vs Shyama Pada Ray And Ors. on 14 January, 1952

8. Under the then provisions of the Code, it was generally agreed that an award by the arbitrators under such circumstances could not be enforced as an award; it was however accepted as an adjustment under rule 3 of Order XXIII of the Code of Civil Procedure. Vide 'MANILAL MOTILAL v. GOKALDAS ROWJI', 45 Bom 245; 'CHANBASAPPA v. BASLINGAYYA' 51 Bom 908 F B; 'GAJENDRA SINGHA v. DURGA KUMARI', 47 All 637 F B and BASOO v. JAGANNATH', AIR 1931 Oudh 127.
Calcutta High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 10 - Full Document

Jugaldas Damodar Modi & Co. vs Pursottam Umedbhai & Co. on 27 January, 1953

11. Such contract cannot be enforced and filed in Court under Section 20, Arbitration Act, 1940. It was clear that the contract could not be filed even under para 17 Schedule II, C. P. C. 1908: -- 'Manilal Motilal v. Gokuldas Rowji', 45 Bom 245 at pp. 248-9, 266-8 (M); -- 'Chanbasappa v. Basiingayya', AIR 1927 Bom 565 at pp. 573-4; 578; 580-1 (N); -- 'Dinkarbai v. Yasavantrai', .
Calcutta High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 12 - Full Document
1   2 Next