Skip to content


Bansidhar Vs. Sital Prasad and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectContract
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1907)ILR29All13
AppellantBansidhar
RespondentSital Prasad and anr.
Excerpt:
.....working in schools which are established and administered by the cantonment board. [deolali cantonment board v usha devidas dongre, 1993 mah.lj 74; 1993 lab ic 1858 overruled]. - , 112, that no party to an agreement of reference 'can revoke the submission to arbitration, unless for good cause, and that a mere arbitrary revocation of the authority is not permitted. 1. if this statement is true, there might be good cause for revoking the submission......the submission no longer exists, and it would be necessary to determine whether the award is a valid award and would bind the parties. if the award is valid, the plaintiff is not entitled to maintain the suit. we must therefore have findings on the following issues, which we refer to the court below under section 566 of the code of civil procedure:(1) was the submission to arbitration revoked by the plaintiff? if so, when?(2) was the arbitrator guilty of collusion with the defendant no. 1 and dishonesty?(3) was an award made by the arbitrator, and, if so, when?(4) is the award legally valid and binding on the plaintiff?2. the court will take such evidence relevant to the above issues as may be tendered by the parties. on receipt of the findings ten days will be allowed for objections.
Judgment:

Banerji and Richards, JJ.

1. The suit of the plaintiff appellant has been dismissed by the Courts below on the ground that Section 21 of the Specific Relief Act is a bar to it. It appears that the plaintiff and the first defendant executed an agreement of reference to arbitration on the 22nd of March 1904. The plaintiff states in his plaint that he revoked the submission to arbitration on the ground that the arbitrator was colluding with the defendant, and that he was therefore entitled to maintain the present suit. The defendant, on the other hand, asserted that not only did the submission to arbitration subsist at the date of the suit but an award had been made before the suit was filed. The Courts below have not considered whether the plaintiff revoked the reference to arbitration. It was held by this Court in Tahal v. Bisheshar (1885) I.L.R., 8 All., 57 that the contract, the existence of which would bar a suit under Section 21 of the Specific Relief Act, must be an operative contract at the date of the suit. In the present case the plaintiff alleged, as stated above, that the submission had been revoked. It has been held by their Lordships of the Privy Council in Pestonjee Nussurwanjee v. Manockjee & Co. (1868) 12 Moo., I.A., 112, that no party to an agreement of reference 'can revoke the submission to arbitration, unless for good cause, and that a mere arbitrary revocation of the authority is not permitted.' The cause for revocation alleged in this case is that the arbitrator was in fraudulent collusion with the defendant No. 1. If this statement is true, there might be good cause for revoking the submission. Again, if an award has been made, the submission no longer exists, and it would be necessary to determine whether the award is a valid award and would bind the parties. If the award is valid, the plaintiff is not entitled to maintain the suit. We must therefore have findings on the following issues, which We refer to the Court below under Section 566 of the Code of Civil Procedure:

(1) Was the submission to arbitration revoked by the plaintiff? If so, when?

(2) Was the arbitrator guilty of collusion with the defendant No. 1 and dishonesty?

(3) Was an award made by the arbitrator, and, if so, when?

(4) Is the award legally valid and binding on the plaintiff?

2. The Court will take such evidence relevant to the above issues as may be tendered by the parties. On receipt of the findings ten days will be allowed for objections.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //