Skip to content


Kamta Prasad Vs. Jodha Singh and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectArbitration
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported in7Ind.Cas.99
AppellantKamta Prasad
RespondentJodha Singh and anr.
Excerpt:
arbitration - award--some of the arbitrators retiring before signing award--legality of award--decree passed in accordance--with award--appeal. - cantonments act[c.a. no. 41/2006]. section 346 & cantonment fund (servants rules, 1937, rules 13, 14 & 15: [h.l. gokhale, ag. cj, p.v. hardas, naresh h. patil, r.m. borde & r.m. savant, jj] jurisdiction of school tribunal constituted under maharashtra employees of private schools (conditions of service) regulations act, (3 of 1978) held, school run by the cantonment board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such board comparable to the divisional board or the state board. the school tribunal constituted under section 8 of the maharashtra act cannot entertain appeals filed under section 9 by the employees working in..........with the a ward. under paragraph 16 of schedule ii of the present code, no appeal lies from such a decree. an appeal was, however, filed and the lower appellate court holding that the award was not a legal award, set aside the decree of the munsif and remanded the case to the munsif for further decision. in appeal before us it is urged that no appeal lay to the lower appellate court. we accede to this contention. the withdrawal of the two arbitrators at the very last moment, when they found the decision of the majority against them, was a mere trick either to save their wounded pride or due to some less honorable motive. the arbitrators who withdrew themselves admitted that there was no misconduct of any kind on the part of the others. we, therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the.....
Judgment:

1. The present suit was filed in the Court of the Munsif of Orai. Before he decided the case, the parties referred the case, to arbitration. The submission to arbitration is on the record. It shows that the plaintiff was to appoint two arbitrators, the defendant was to appoint two others and one umpire was to be appointed. In the event of the arbitrators disagreeing, the decision of the majority was to prevail. The case was sent to the arbitrators nominated by the parties. None of the arbitrators refused to act. Several meetings took place in a temple and the arbitrators talked over the case. They got so far that the two arbitrators of the defendant and the umpire cams to an agreement as to the view which should be taken of the matters in dispute. The two arbitrators named by the plaintiff came to an opposite conclusion. The length to which matters had proceeded may be inferred from the fact that the money necessary to purchase the stamp paper on which the award was to be written was deposited. At this stage and only when this stage had been reached, the arbitrators nominated by the plaintiff retired from the meeting. One of the two gave notice the same day that he retired without giving any reasons and the second sent in a notice the following day in which he frankly admitted that the reason why he withdrew was that the view of the majority was against him. The arbitrators nominated by the defendant and the umpire, on the very day on which the two arbitrators of the plaintiff withdrew, prepared an award, signed it and submitted it to the Court together with a document explaining secretly all that had taken place. This reached the Court on the 23rd April, 4 days after the award had been signed. The Court, to which the award was submitted, went into the matter and saw no cause to remit the award and refused the application made to it to set aside the award. The Court then passed a decree in accordance with the award. No exception is taken to the decree passed on the award on the ground that it is either in excess of or not in accordance with the a ward. Under paragraph 16 of Schedule II of the present Code, no appeal lies from such a decree. An appeal was, however, filed and the lower appellate Court holding that the award was not a legal award, set aside the decree of the Munsif and remanded the case to the Munsif for further decision. In appeal before us it is urged that no appeal lay to the lower appellate Court. We accede to this contention. The withdrawal of the two arbitrators at the very last moment, when they found the decision of the majority against them, was a mere trick either to save their wounded pride or due to some less honorable motive. The arbitrators who withdrew themselves admitted that there was no misconduct of any kind on the part of the others. We, therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the order of the Court below and restore that of the Court of first instance with costs.


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