Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.19 seconds)
Namdeo S/O Maroti Gabhane vs Monabai (Smt.) W/O Laxman Jadhao And ... on 3 February, 1989 cites

Dinkarrai Lakshmiprasad vs Yeshwantrai Hariprasad on 27 March, 1929

14. My attention was invited to Dinkarrai v. Yeshwantrai where this Court took the view that an agreement to refer to arbitration matter in differences between the parties in a pending suit without the order of the Court under paras 1 to 3, Schedule 2 is illegal and cannot be filed under para 17 of the Schedule. The point for decision in that reported ruling was quite different. In that litigation, a suit for accounts was pending before the Court and during the pendency of the suit, the parties agreed to get their dispute settled through the arbitrators. The agreement was so made on 2-8-1927. The arbitrators nominated under the agreement assembled on 27-10-1927. But they could not agree as to the appointment of the Umpire. The time was extended. Thereafter the respondents attorneys refused to consent to any further extension. The agreement, therefore, came to be filed before the Court. The question that was precisely before the Court was, whether the agreement of reference pending the suit between the parties, made without the intervention of the Court can be allowed to be filed in accordance with the provisions of paras 17 Schedule 2 of C.P.C. The Court answered this question in the negative. The reading of the whole report shows that as the agreement of Arbitration was made during the pendency of the suit, that too without reference to the Court, it could not be filed before the Court and Court could not act upon it. The dispute in the present case is not regarding the filing of the agreement. In the present case before us, nobody wants to file this agreement and nobody wants the action to be taken by the court in pursuance of the agreement and in furtherance of the arbitration. Therefore the ratis laid down in (cited supra) would not be of any avail as far as the present case is concerned. On the other hand, the Full Bench of this Court in A.I.R. 1927 Bom. 565 (supra) has taken a very positive view. The question referred to the Full Bench was:
Bombay High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Anil Narendra vs Virendra And Ors. on 24 September, 1973

The Delhi High Court in Anil Narendra v. Virendra and others, I.L.R. 1974(2) Delhi 117 have also taken the similar view. The Delhi High Court has held that a private reference to an arbitration in an identical suit without the knowledge of the Court and without its direction is invalid and an award resulting therefrom, cannot be made a rule of the Court unless all the parties interested in the suit consent to the award being filed into the Court as a compromise or adjustment of the suit. It further held that an agreement to refer a dispute to arbitration when the suit is pending for adjudication of the dispute to arbitration when the suit is pending for adjudication of the dispute is not illegal. The parties are competent to make a valid reference under Chapter II of the disputes in a pending suit if they agree to an arbitration without the supervision of the Court and to withdraw the suit, even if reference is made before the withdrawal of the suit. It would be enough in law that the award is made after the suit is withdrawn when proceedings to obtain judgment in terms of the award can be obtained not in the suit itself under Chapter 2 of the Act. We are somewhat concerned here with the views expressed by the Delhi Court to the effect that a private arbitration in a pending suit is not illegal or invalid.
Delhi High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Chanbasappa Gurushantappa Hiremath vs Baslingayya Gokurnaya Hiremath on 14 April, 1927

17. What Mr. Mehadia contended before me was that, the intention of the parties thereto was not to refer the dispute to arbitration. But according to him, the parties all the while expressly stated before the Court that they want to compromise the suit. A compromise may be achieved in more than one ways. Parties may sit together, deliberate and patch up their differences and come to an agreement. There are also other methods when a matter can be compromised. Parties may appoint the persons of their confidence and accept the verdict given by them. This may not technically be called as arbitration, but it can be one of the modes of compromise. Crump, J., in A.I.R. 1927 Bombay 565 (supra) observed:
Bombay High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 12 - Full Document
1