Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (1.69 seconds)
Documents citing Thakkar Vithalbhai Hargovind And Anr. vs Kachhia Jagjivan Motilal (Deed.) By His ... on 24 September, 1968

Natvarlal Maganlal Amin (Deed. Through ... vs Amin Thakorbhai Maganbhai on 12 February, 1985

There was no question of any agreement between the parties accepting the award either in the case before the Supreme Court or in the case before this Court, but I have referred to these two decisions because the learned trial Judge who has relied upon the decision of this Court in Vithalbhai v. Jagjivan (supra) does not appear to have carefully read this judgment of this Court and has, therefore, not properly understood the ratio of this decision. The learned trial Judge has simply taken into consideration the observations by the Division Bench that the award if not filed in Court is not a scrap of paper. The learned trial Judge, with respect to him, lost sight of the fact that the above observations were made by the Division Bench while dealing with the question whether the award can be set up as a defence or not. It is pertinent to note that the Division Bench has specifically observed that such an award, if not filed in Court, remains valid and if not got rid of, it can well be put up as a defence saying that it bars a suit. This decision of this Court thus does not in any way support the contention that the suit based on an award is maintainable even if the award is not made the rule of the Court.
Gujarat High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Kalidas Devji Mali Vaghari vs Police Commissioner, Baroda And Ors. on 17 July, 1986

In the case of Vithalbhai v. Jagjivan (1969) 10 Guj LR 288, after considering the case of Smt. Somvanti v. State of Punjab, AIR 1%3 SC 151, the Division Bench of this Court has held that the mere circumstance or fact that the Supreme Court has not considered the effect of several decisions which existed on a particular point would not detract from the weight or the binding effect of the decision of the Supreme Court.
Gujarat High Court Cites 63 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Kehar Dass vs Tarak Singh And Anr. on 10 August, 1973

It was further observed by their Lordships that the trial Court was right in holding that the disputes which were then sought to be raised were covered by the first award and, so, that reference was incompetent in law. The aforesaid observations clearly go to show that the appellant had no right to institute the suit regarding a matter which had already been decided between the parties by the Gram Panchayat to whom the matter had been referred by them under the Act. The observations further go to prove that a defence can be taken by the defendant that an award given by the arbitrator can be set up as a defence in a suit. I am bound by the observations of Hon'ble the Supreme Court. This judgment was followed by the Gujarat High Court in ILR (1969) 10 Guj 12(supra). In that case a suit was instituted for dissolution of partnership and rendition of accounts. A defence was taken that the subject-matter of the suit was referred to arbitration, that the arbitrator had given an award and that, therefore, no suit was maintainable. The learned Division Bench observed as follows:--
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Kehar Dass vs Tarak Singh And Anr. on 22 February, 1977

13. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondent in reply was, that when the parties enter into an agreement for settlement of their dispute by arbitration, its effect is, to take the Ms out of the hands of the ordinary Courts of the land and to entrust it to the decision of, what has been termed, a private tribunal. Further according to him, the object of the Arbitration Act is to prevent parties to an arbitration from reagitating the same question in dispute referred to arbitration in the manner other than as provided by the Act and that an award which is signed by the parties would determine the dispute and It is not necessary before it can be regarded as complete that it should be made a rule of the Court. He further pointed out that it is not necessary that the award should be filed in the Court and it is only when a party to an arbitration agreement feels that it would be necessary for him to obtain the assistance of the Court, it is only then that he requests the arbitrator to file the award in the Court and that the award which is not made a rule of the Court is not a nullity. He placed reliance upon Thakkar Viihaldas Hargovind v. Kachhia Jagjivan Motilal, ILR (1969) Guj 12 decided by a Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court, wherein it has been held that:--
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Mahendrasinhji Zoravarsinhji Sandhu vs Kamal B. Deval on 3 March, 2000

Mr. Anjaria has submitted that respondent No. 2 therefore clearly expressed that she had no objection if the decree is passed in terms of the award. As per para 2, she has agreed to appoint Shri P. S. Gadhvi as Arbitrator and that the award was passed after giving full opportunity to represent themselves before him. Mr. Anjaria has also submitted that there was no ground for modification or even remitting back the award as in this regard, the scope was limited under Sees. 15 and 17 of the Arbitration Act. Mr. Anjaria has also placed reliance on a decision of this Court in the case of Thakkar Vithalbhai Hargovind & Anr. v. Kachhia Jagjivan Moiilal & Ors., reported in 1969 GLR 288. The relevant portion of this judgment from para 7 is reproduced as under :
Gujarat High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Joginder Singh Goolry vs Jasbir Singh Sohel Singh And Ors. on 2 May, 1998

Reference may be made in this connection to the case Thakkar Vithalbhai Hargovind v. Kachhia Jagjivan Motilal (Dead.) By his heirs bail Kashi ((1969) 10 GLR 288). The question before the Court was whether the award was invalid because it was not given within four months after the date of which the Arbitrator entered the reference, on the premise that award made after expiry of the period is a nullity. Referring to the provisions of Section 28, the Court observed :
Gujarat High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sardar Jogindersingh Goolry vs Sardar Jasbirsingh Sohelsingh And Ors. on 2 May, 1998

Reference may be made in this connection to the case Thakkar Vithalbhai Hargovind and Anr. v. Kachhia Jagjivan Motilal (Decd.) by his heirs Bai Kashi and Ors. reported in (1969) X GLR 288. The question before the Court was whether the award was invalid because it was not given within four months after the date on which the arbitrator entered the reference, on the premise that award made after expiry of the period is a nullity. Referring to the provisions of Section 28, the Court observed:
Gujarat High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1