Skip to content


Lachhmi Lal Vs. Khairati Miyan - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Reported inAIR1934All109; 147Ind.Cas.623
AppellantLachhmi Lal
RespondentKhairati Miyan
Excerpt:
- - it is argued before me on behalf of the defendant-applicant that there was no provision for the majority decision prevailing, and therefore the decree of the court below is bad. in this case the agreement clearly meant that only in the case of an unanimous decision there would be a valid award and not otherwise......it is argued before me on behalf of the defendant-applicant that there was no provision for the majority decision prevailing, and therefore the decree of the court below is bad.2. the court below held and mr. malaviya for the respondent has argued that the appointment of a 'sarpanch' meant that the opinion of that arbitrator shall prevail with whom the sarpanch shall agree. the argument is based on para. 4, schedule 2, civil p.c. in my opinion, this is not a correct reading of para. 4. that paragraph lays down that some provision as to the binding character of the award should be made for a case where a reference is made to two or more arbitrators. when there are two arbitrators, there can be no majority of opinion in the case of a difference, and therefore an umpire has to be.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Mukerji, J.

1. This revision arises out of an arbitration proceeding which has been confirmed by the Court below. The parties to the suit agreed that three gentlemen could be appointed arbitrators, and one of them should be appointed the 'Sarpanch' and they should decide the case. No provision was made for any difference of opinion. The arbitrators could not agree, and there was a majority of 2 to 1. The learned Munsif accepted the majority verdict and made a decree. It is argued before me on behalf of the defendant-applicant that there was no provision for the majority decision prevailing, and therefore the decree of the Court below is bad.

2. The Court below held and Mr. Malaviya for the respondent has argued that the appointment of a 'Sarpanch' meant that the opinion of that arbitrator shall prevail with whom the Sarpanch shall agree. The argument is based on para. 4, Schedule 2, Civil P.C. In my opinion, this is not a correct reading of para. 4. That paragraph lays down that some provision as to the binding character of the award should be made for a case where a reference is made to two or more arbitrators. When there are two arbitrators, there can be no majority of opinion in the case of a difference, and therefore an umpire has to be appointed. Such was not the case here. The reference to arbitration does not say that the Sarpanch would act only in the case of difference of opinion between the two arbitrators. In the case where only two arbitrators are appointed and there is an umpire, the umpire need not act till a difference of opinion occurs between the two arbitrators. In this case the agreement clearly meant that only in the case of an unanimous decision there would be a valid award and not otherwise. The precaution, which a Court ought to take, according to para. 4, Schedule 2, Civil P.C. was not taken by the Court below. In the result, I allow the application in revision with costs and send back the case to the Court below for decision in accordance with law. The parties will be asked if they still want that their case should be decided by any or what arbitrators. In case of further reference the Court will take the precaution mentioned in para 4, Schedule 2.


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