Skip to content


Ram Nath Vs. Audh Behari Lal and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Reported inAIR1934All939; 153Ind.Cas.169
AppellantRam Nath
RespondentAudh Behari Lal and ors.
Excerpt:
- .....on behalf of a plaintiff under the following circumstances: the plaintiff brought a suit on a promissory note claiming interest. the trial court referred the ease to arbitration and an award was filed awarding interest to the plaintiff. an objection wan then taken to the trial court by the defendant that the promissory note in question did not provide for the payment of interest. the trial court considered that this amounted to an objection as to the legality of the award apparent on the face of it within the meaning of section 14(c), schedule 2, civil p.c., and accordingly it referred the arbitration for the reconsideration of the arbitrator. the arbitrator then filed an award in which he did not award any future interest, and the lower court has accepted that award and passed a.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Bennet, J.

1. This is a civil revision on behalf of a plaintiff under the following circumstances: The plaintiff brought a suit on a promissory note claiming interest. The trial Court referred the ease to arbitration and an award was filed awarding interest to the plaintiff. An objection wan then taken to the trial Court by the defendant that the promissory note in question did not provide for the payment of interest. The trial Court considered that this amounted to an objection as to the legality of the award apparent on the face of it within the meaning of section 14(c), Schedule 2, Civil P.C., and accordingly it referred the arbitration for the reconsideration of the arbitrator. The arbitrator then filed an award in which he did not award any future interest, and the lower Court has accepted that award and passed a decree on it. The revision is against this decree. The ground is urged in revision that the Court below had no jurisdiction to remit the award for reconsideration.

2. I It appears to me that it is doubtful whether the want of provision in the promissory note for the payment of interest was the kind of objection to legality of the award apparent on the face of it which is contemplated by Section 14(c), Schedule 2. But in any case learned Counsel admits that the lower Court was wrong because the Interest Act will allow a Court or an arbitrator to award interest under these circumstances even though there is no provision in the promissory note for the payment of interest. The objection to the legality therefore was one which did not in fact exist. Under these circumstances the lower Court was not entitled to remit the award for reconsideration, and the second award is not valid. Accordingly) I set aside the decree of the Court below and I direct that the Court below shall proceed to consider the objections to the first award of 10th December 1932 ac. cording to law, so far, if at all, as it has not disposed of those objections by its order of 23rd December 1933. Learned Counsel urges that there is an objection in regard to the immediate payment of Rs. 1,000, in the award which objection had not been disposed of. Costs of the revision are allowed to the applicant.


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