Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.51 seconds)
Documents citing Rukhanbai vs Adamji Shaik Rajbhai on 3 April, 1908

Manilal Motilal vs Gokaldas Rowji on 20 July, 1920

46. Another objection taken in Rukhanbai'" case at p. 73 is, that Chapter XXXVII of the then Civil Procedure Code (corresponding to Schedule II of the present Code) provides a special procedure for extraordinary extra-judicial methods of settling disputed claims, and it must have been the intention of the Legislature that that procedure and no other was to be followed.
Bombay High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 17 - Full Document

Ponnamma vs Marampudi Kotamma And Ors. on 18 April, 1932

In my judgment, the view held by Beaman, J., in Rukhanbai v. Adamji (1908) I.L.R. 33 Bom. 69, that an award which is not made upon a written submission in an arbitration to which the Act applies has no legal foundation or consequence, is not warranted by anything contained in the Act. In the absence of any other ground being shown for impugning the validity of the award I think the Lower Court rightly held that it barred the appellant's suit.
Madras High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Vyankatesh Mahadev vs Ramchandra Krishna on 25 June, 1914

7. On this application for revision it has been contended though the contention has not been very seriously pressed, that the submission to arbitration did as a matter of fact amount to a lawful adjustment, but there does not seem to me to be any substance in that contention as there was no resulting award as explained in the case of Rukhanbai v. Adamji (1908) 10 Bom. L.E. 366, 372 I.L. R; 13 Bom.
Bombay High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Nanjappa And Anr. And Basuvaraju And ... vs Nanja Rao And Ors. on 1 May, 1911

There are certain remarks in the nature of obiter dicta by Beaman, J. in Rukhanbai v. Adamji 33 B. 69 : 10 Bom. L.R. 366 : 1 Ind. Cas. 622 tending to throw doubts on the validity of the reasoning in the above three decisions, but we need only remark that we are unable to take the view that the reasoning of the learned Judge has displaced their authority. Whether a mere agreement to refer to arbitration will itself be an adjustment under Section 375 so that a decree might be passed under the section, referring the suit to arbitration a per the agreement, (as distinguished from a mere order of reference under Section 506 on application of the parties), is a doubtful question, though the Privy Council has accepted such a decree as a proper decree and as putting an end to the suit.
Madras High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

V. Sreenivasa Chariar And Ors. vs P. Kumara Thathachariar And Ors. on 18 July, 1918

3. We have also been referred to the case of Rukhanbai v. Adamji 1 Ind. Cas. 622 ; 33 B. 69 ; 10 Bom. L.R. 366 decided by a single Judge. There, Beaman, J., was dealing with a case of an agreement to refer the matter in dispute in an administration suit to the decision of an Assistant Commissioner. He held that there had been no regular submission to arbitration and no acceptance by the parties of the so-called arbitrator's award. He finally made an order referring the matter back to the very same arbitrator. The facts of that case are dissimilar from those of this case. Now in the present case we have an agreement in writing signed by the Vakils of the contesting parties to abide by the final decision of another appealable suit in a connected case. I fail to see any valid reason why this agreement plus the final decision of the High Court in Original Suit No. 295 of 1886 does not conclude the claims of the parties in this suit and operate as an adjustment of the suit.
Madras High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Unde Rajaha Raja Sir Raja Velugoti Sri ... vs V. China Reddy And Four Ors. on 8 February, 1912

In Rukhanbhai v. Adamji (1909) I.L.R. 33 Bom. 69, Beaman, J., held that an agreement that certain disputes relating to the accounts between the parties in the case should be decided by the Assistant Commissioner in a summary manner without going into formal evidence beyond the accounts, objections and surcharges filed before him, was not binding. The learned Judge observes that it did not amount to an adjustment or compromise and that the agreement not being in writing would not constitute a binding reference to arbitration. He elaborately discusses the question whether an agreement to refer to arbitration and to be bound by the award passed by an arbitrator can be treated as amounting to a compromise, and expresses his disinclination to accept as sound the decisions cited before him in support of the position that such an agreement would amount to an adjustment or compromise when an award has been passed by the arbitrator. We consider it unnecessary to express any opinion on this question, as it is clear that the agreement in the present case cannot be treated as a reference of the dispute in the small cause suit to the arbitration of the Munsif who was trying Original Suit No. 281 of 1907.
Madras High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 3 - Full Document
1