Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (0.41 seconds)
Penmetcha Subbaraju vs Penmetcha Venkatramaraju on 17 April, 1928 cites

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

6. If an agreement to abide by the decision of an arbitrator can be held to be a compromise, the section is clearly applicable. It has been suggested that a mere agreement to be bound by a future award is not a compromise, whereas an agreement to accept an award that has been made is a compromise. It is difficult to see on what principle parties who agree to accept a certain fixed sum in satisfaction of a claim can be said to compromise that claim, whereas if they agree to accept a sum which is to be fixed by some one else, that does not amount to a compromise. The meaning of the word "compromise" has been elaborately discussed by Martin, C.J., in Chanbasappa v. Baslingayya (1927) I.L.R. 51 B. 908 : 29 Bom. L.R. 1254 (F.B.) and, with respect, I entirely agree with him that the agreement to abide by the decision of an arbitrator is a compromise of the claim.
Bombay High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 12 - Full Document

Nanjappa vs Nanjappa Rao on 1 May, 1912

In Nanjappa v. Nanjappa Rao (1912) 23 M.L.J. 290 it was held that an award in such circumstances was a lawful agreement, compromise and adjustment within the meaning of Section 375 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1882, which is the section corresponding to Order 23, Rule 3. In that case the previous decisions of this Court were referred to and followed. The subsequent cases in which the decision was under the Code of 1908 have held that Order 23, Rule 3 can be applied in. such circumstances.
Madras High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Ram Prosad Surajmull vs Mohan Lal Lachminarain on 16 February, 1920

9. Another argument has been adduced by Mr. T.M. Krishnaswami Aiyar for the respondent, namely, that when parties engage in litigation and give the Court jurisdiction to decide their dispute, it is not open to oust that jurisdiction by an agreement among themselves; and reliance is placed on Doleman and Sons v. Ossett Corporation (1912) 3 K.B. 257 which was followed in Ram Prosad Surajmull v. Mohan Lal Lachminarain (1920) I.L.R. 47 C. 752 and Appavu v. Seeni (1916) I.L.R. 41 M. 115 : 33 M.L.J. 177. That case is not, however, at all applicable to the present question, for there it was held that, when there was, what is called an arbitration clause in an agreement and in contravention of that clause a suit had been filed, it was not open to plead an award given after suit as a bar to the action. There, however, the agreement to submit the disputes for arbitration was made before the suit was filed and on this ground the case is distinguishable. Fletcher Moulton, L. J., observed at page 269:
Calcutta High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 10 - Full Document
1   2 Next