Skip to content


Kali Charan Pande and ors. Vs. Gupt Nath Misra and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1918All274; 45Ind.Cas.34
AppellantKali Charan Pande and ors.
RespondentGupt Nath Misra and ors.
Excerpt:
civil procedure code (act v of 1908), schedule ii, paras. 14,15 - arbitration--award by some out of several arbitrators, validity of. - .....issued to the parties for that and was also sent to the defendants and their arbitrators. on that date the four arbitrators proceeded to take all the evidence afresh that the plaintiffs offered. the defendants were not present nor were their witnesses. one fact has to be noted, and that is that after the meeting of the 19th or 20th of february, one of the two arbitrators who withdrew, took away with him the record of the evidence which had been taken on the 10th of february. on the 21st of march, the four arbitrators after recording the evidence of the plaintiffs' witnesses on that date drew up an award and signed it. it was this award which the plaintiffs put forward in court that it should be filed and a decree passed upon it. the court of first instance granted the application. the.....
Judgment:

1. This is an application in revision arising out of arbitration proceedings. The facts briefly are as follows: The parties to the dispute agreed to settle it by arbitration (out of Court). There was no suit pending. They referred their dispute to six arbitrators agreeing that the verdict should be, if necessary, the verdict of the majority. The arbitrators met on the 10th of February 1915. The parties produced evidence which was recorded. The arbitrators again met on the 19th or 20th of February. They discussed the matter and apparently were soon divided into two groups in the opinions they expressed. No decision was arrived at, no award was drawn up. Two of the arbitrators withdrew from the arbitration and sent in notice to that effect. Thereupon the remaining four arbitrators again met on the 21st of March. Prior to that date notice was issued to the parties for that and was also sent to the defendants and their arbitrators. On that date the four arbitrators proceeded to take all the evidence afresh that the plaintiffs offered. The defendants were not present nor were their witnesses. One fact has to be noted, and that is that after the meeting of the 19th or 20th of February, one of the two arbitrators who withdrew, took away with him the record of the evidence which had been taken on the 10th of February. On the 21st of March, the four arbitrators after recording the evidence of the plaintiffs' witnesses on that date drew up an award and signed it. It was this award which the plaintiffs put forward in Court that it should be filed and a decree passed upon it. The Court of first instance granted the application. The lower Ap-pellate Court held that this award, on the face of it and upon the facts stated, was an illegal award and set aside the order of the first Court. It seems to us in the first place that the order of the Court below was correct. The award of the 21st of March was not an award within the intention of the parties. It was based upon fresh proceedings and fresh evidence taken by four out of six arbitrators and it was not an award based upon the proceedings of the 10th of February and 19th or 20th of February. We can find no ground whatsoever for revision. The Court below way entitled to go into the matter and to see whether any of the grounds mentioned in paragraphs 14 and 15 of the Second Schedule of the Civil Procedure Code were proved. It went into the facts and held, as we have mentioned above, that the award was invalid and set aside the order of the first Court. We cannot find that the Court below acted illegally or with material irregularity in the circumstances of this case. There is, therefore, no force in the application. It is dismissed with costs.


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