Skip to content


K. Hyder Sahib and ors. Vs. N. Giria Chettiar - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil;Limitation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported in(1913)24MLJ483
AppellantK. Hyder Sahib and ors.
RespondentN. Giria Chettiar
Excerpt:
- .....under rules nos. 12 and 14. i think the court is bound to correct any obvious mistakes or slips in an award which are brought to its notice in the same manner in which it will correct mistakes in its decrees and that it is not necessary that any formal application should be made by a party for this purpose. it is possibly for this reason that no specific provision is made by the limitation act for applications to correct an award.2. the award in accordance with which the court has to pronounce judgment under rule 16, is that which contains the real intention of the arbitrators, and the court should, i think, have taken into consideration any facts which go to show that the award does not actually embody their intention.3. i think therefore that the learned district judge omitted to.....
Judgment:

Bakewell, J.

1. It is alleged that the arbitrators through a slip made a miscalculation of the amount due from the defendant since they took a railway maund to be 80 lbs. instead of 82 2/7 The defendant brought the matter before the Court in a lengthy petition, which sets out several objections to the award and prays that it may be corrected or remitted to the arbitrators. The learned District judge held that the application was in effect to set aside the award and that it was barred under article 158 of the Limitation Act. I think that an application to set aside an award is one falling within rule 15 of the 2nd schedule of the Code of Civil Procedure, and does not include proceedings under rules Nos. 12 and 14. I think the Court is bound to correct any obvious mistakes or slips in an award which are brought to its notice in the same manner in which it will correct mistakes in its decrees and that it is not necessary that any formal application should be made by a party for this purpose. It is possibly for this reason that no specific provision is made by the Limitation Act for applications to correct an award.

2. The award in accordance with which the Court has to pronounce judgment under rule 16, is that which contains the real intention of the arbitrators, and the Court should, I think, have taken into consideration any facts which go to show that the award does not actually embody their intention.

3. I think therefore that the learned District judge omitted to exercise a jurisdiction vested in him, and that the case must be remitted to him to determine whether a mistake has been made in the award. No order is made as to costs.


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