Rukhanbai vs Adamji Shaik Rajbhai on 3 April, 1908
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.