Skip to content


Hafiz Haji Muhammad Fakhar-ud-dIn Vs. Murlidhar and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectArbitration
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported in5Ind.Cas.621
AppellantHafiz Haji Muhammad Fakhar-ud-din
RespondentMurlidhar and ors.
Excerpt:
arbitration - decree in accordance with the award--no appeal lies--arbitrator delegating authority. - .....agreed that some of the matters in dispute should be enquired into and reported upon by mr. craig. mr. craig was examined as a witness before the arbitrator and as the parties had agreed to accept the estimate and valuation made by mr. craig, the arbitrator accepted such estimate and valuation. in so doing he (the arbitrator) did not delegate his authority to another person and cannot be said to have acted beyond the scope of his authority.2. the only other matter in respect of which it is said that the arbitrator exceeded his powers is that he allowed credit to the defendants for a sum of rs. 2,000. under the submission to arbitration the parties consented to the whole case being decided by pandit sri kishun, pleader, as an arbitrator and they prayed that the whole case might be.....
Judgment:

1. A preliminary objection has been taken to the hearing of this appeal on behalf of the respondents on the ground that the matter in controversy between the parties was referred to arbitration by consent of parties, that the arbitrator made an award, that the Court below has passed a decree in accordance with the award and that consequently no appeal lies from the decree so passed. In our judgment this objection must prevail. It is contended on behalf of the plaintiff-appellant that the award is ab initio void and that, therefore) an appeal lies. We do not agree with this contention. It is said that the award is void because the arbitrator accepted the report of one Mr. Craig to whom certain matters were referred by consent of parties. We find that both parties agreed that some of the matters in dispute should be enquired into and reported upon by Mr. Craig. Mr. Craig was examined as a witness before the arbitrator and as the parties had agreed to accept the estimate and valuation made by Mr. Craig, the arbitrator accepted such estimate and valuation. In so doing he (the arbitrator) did not delegate his authority to another person and cannot be said to have acted beyond the scope of his authority.

2. The only other matter in respect of which it is said that the arbitrator exceeded his powers is that he allowed credit to the defendants for a sum of Rs. 2,000. Under the submission to arbitration the parties consented to the whole case being decided by Pandit Sri Kishun, Pleader, as an arbitrator and they prayed that the whole case might be sent to him so that he might decide the whole case and pass necessary orders as to costs. The defendants in their defence had raised a plea in respect of this sum of Rs. 2,000 and it was a part of the dispute between the parties whether this sum of Rs. 2,000 should be credited to the defendants or not. This was a matter fully within the scope of the arbitrator's authority and we agree with the Court below in holding that the arbitrator did not exceed his authority in dealing with it. The award, in our opinion, is not void and as the Court below considered and overruled the objections taken in respect of it and made a decree in accordance with it, no appeal lies from that decree. We accordingly dismiss the appeal with costs including fees on the higher scale.


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