Nathuram Girwarchand and anr. Vs. Baijnath Mangakhanlal - Court Judgment
|Court||Madhya Pradesh High Court|
|Case Number||Civil Revn. No. 45 of 1957|
|Judge||Shiv Dayal Shrivastava, J.|
|Acts||Limitation Act, 1908 - Schedule - Article 178|
|Appellant||Nathuram Girwarchand and anr.|
|Appellant Advocate||Ram Krishna Dixit, Adv.|
|Respondent Advocate||Kishanlal Batham, Adv.|
|Cases Referred||Lachhmi Prasad v. Govardhan Das|
- indian penal code, 1890.section 306 :[dalveer bhandari & harjit singh bedi,jj] abetment of suicide deceased, a married woman, committed suicide - allegation of abetment of suicide against appellant husband and in-laws - ocular evidence was sketchy - dying declaration recorded by tahsildar completely exonerated all accused in-laws of any misconduct dispelling any suspicion as to their involvement - letter of threat allegedly written by appellant to father of victim was concocted piece of evidence held, though presumption against appellant can be raised, it cannot be said that onus shifts exclusively and heavily on him to prove his innocence. conviction of appellant is liable to be set aside. ordershiv dayal shrivastava, j. 1. in this revision the question is whether the award filed by the arbitrators was barred by time and, therefore, could not be acted upon by the civil court before which it was filed. certain dispute between the parties in this revision was referred to arbitration on 7-1-1955. the arbitrators filed their award in the court of civil judge second class, bhind on 8-10-1955. inter alia the objection of the petitioners nathuram and shrilal was that the filing of the award was barred by time and therefore it should be set aside. the objection was overruled by the trial judge.2. in this revision shri ramkrishan dixit learned counsel for the petitioners relies on article 178 of the limitation act. in my opinion that article does not apply where an award is filed by.....
Shiv Dayal Shrivastava, J.
1. In this revision the question is whether the award filed by the arbitrators was barred by time and, therefore, could not be acted upon by the Civil Court before which it was filed. Certain dispute between the parties in this revision was referred to arbitration on 7-1-1955. The arbitrators filed their award in the court of Civil judge Second Class, Bhind on 8-10-1955. Inter alia the objection of the petitioners Nathuram and Shrilal was that the filing of the award was barred by time and therefore it should be set aside. The objection was overruled by the trial Judge.
2. In this revision Shri Ramkrishan Dixit learned counsel for the petitioners relies on Article 178 of the Limitation Act. In my opinion that Article does not apply where an award is filed by an arbitrator himself. When an arbitrator makes an application he does not seek any relief against any party. The articles in the schedule of the Limitation Act apply to applications which are made by the parties seeking relief from the Court against some other parties. In fact the Arbitration Act of 1940 does not require any 'application' to be filed by an arbitrator. In Sheodutt v. Vishnudutta, ILR 1955 Nag 224: ((S) AIR 1955 Nag 116) it is held that Article 178 has no application to an arbitrator filing the award. See also the case of Lachhmi Prasad v. Govardhan Das, AIR 1948 Pat 171.
3. This revision has no substance and it is, therefore, dismissed with costs.