Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.18 seconds)Manilal Motilal vs Gokaldas Rowji on 20 July, 1920
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.
Section 89 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Ghulam Khan vs Muhammad Hassan on 3 December, 1901
(a) Where it is desired that the agreement to refer should have the sanction of the Court; in that case, all further proceedings are under the supervision of the Court, paragraphs 17 to 19 deal with this.
Gajendra Singh vs Durga Kumari on 27 March, 1925
401 is a decision of a single Judge of the Calcutta High Court, and in Gajendra Singh v. Durga Kumari 88 Ind. Cas. 708 : 47 A. 637 : 23 A.L.J. 561 : A.I.R. 1925 All. 503 (F.B.)
Shavaksha Dinsha Davar vs Tyab Haji Ayub on 17 January, 1916
92 : (1921) M.W.N. 756 : 14 L.W. 666 Krishnan and Odgers, JJ., followed with some hesitation Shavaksha Dinsha Davar v. Tyab Haji Ayub 37 Ind. Cas. 140 : 40 B. 386 : 18 Bom.
Amar Chand Chamaria vs Banwari Lall Rakshit And Ors. on 24 November, 1921
Amar Chand v. Banwari Lall 69 Ind. Cas. 808 : 49 C. 008 : A.I.R. 1922 Cal.
Peddapalayam Bodachari Alias ... vs Peddappalayam Muniyachari on 17 August, 1921
In Peddapalayam Bodachari v. Peddapalyam Muniyachari 65 Ind. Cas.
Chintalapalli Chinna Dorayya vs Chintalapalli Venkanna And Ors. on 21 August, 1923
2. The only question of law raised in this case at the hearing of the appeal is that the reference to arbitration out of Court was invalid and cannot constitute an adjustment of the subject-matter of the suit within the meaning of Order XXIII, Rule 3, C.P.C. In this respect I think we should follow the decision of this Court in Chintalapalli Chinna Dorayya v. Chintalapalli Venkanna 70 Ind. Cas. 502 : A.I.R. 1925 Mad.
1