Skip to content


Haji HusaIn Baksh and anr. Vs. Firm Lachhman Das-mathra Das - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported in64Ind.Cas.934
AppellantHaji HusaIn Baksh and anr.
RespondentFirm Lachhman Das-mathra Das
Excerpt:
civil procedure code (act v of 1908), section 115 - revision--arbitration--arbitrator given widest powers--award--private inquiry, validity of--order superseding award--illegality and material irregularity. - - i would, therefore, set aside the order complained of and send bask the case to the court below to have a decree prepared in accordance with the award......he might think proper. on an examination of the record it becomes clear that this was so; the parties expressly stated as much when they certified before the trial court their agreement to refer to arbitration. the learned subordinate judge says that 'personal knowledge is different from making private inquiries;' but he ignores the fact that the parties had given the, arbitrator the widest possible powers and had expressly bound themselves to abide by his decision in whatsoever manner he might see fit to arrive at it. in thus ignoring the terms of the agreement of reference the court below has, in my opinion, acted illegally and with material irregularity; by 80 doing it has assumed jurisdiction to try a suit which the parties had removed from its cognizance and made over,.....
Judgment:

Piggott, J.

1. This is an application in revision against an order superseding an. arbitration and directing the trial of the suit to proceed in the ordinary course. It is based upon a finding that there had been misconduct on the part of the arbitrator and so far complies with the provisions of paragraph 15 of the Second Schedule to the Code of Civil Procedure. The misconduct found against the arbitrator is that he had made 'private inquiries' into the subject matter of the dispute behind the banks of the parties, The learned Subordinate Judge relies upon decisions of this Court. in which it has been laid down that such action on the part of the arbitrator may amount to legal 'misconduct.' where it is not authorised by the agreement of reference. The case for the applicants is that in the present instance the parties had expressly authorised the arbitrator to arrive at a decision, either of his own personal knowledge, or in whatsoever manner he might think proper. On an examination of the record it becomes clear that this was so; the parties expressly stated as much when they certified before the Trial Court their agreement to refer to arbitration. The learned Subordinate Judge says that 'personal knowledge is different from making private inquiries;' but he ignores the fact that the parties had given the, arbitrator the widest possible powers and had expressly bound themselves to abide by his decision in whatsoever manner he might see fit to arrive at it. In thus ignoring the terms of the agreement of reference the Court below has, in my opinion, acted illegally and with material irregularity; by 80 doing it has assumed jurisdiction to try a suit which the parties had removed from its cognizance and made over, unconditionally, to the arbitration tribunal of their own choice. In my opinion the ease falls within the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. I would, therefore, set aside the order complained of and send bask the case to the Court below to have a decree prepared in accordance with the award. The applicants are entitled to all costs in both Courts arising out of the objections to the award filed by the other side.

Walsh, J.

2. I agree.

3. We set aside the order of the Court below and send back the case to that Court in order that a decree may be prepared in accordance with the award. The applicants will get all costs of the proceedings arising out of the objections taken to the award, including in this Court fees on the higher scale.


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