Skip to content


Subraya Prabhu Vs. Manjunath Bhakta - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectArbitration
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1906)ILR29Mad44
AppellantSubraya Prabhu
RespondentManjunath Bhakta
Cases Referred and Scott v. Vansandam
Excerpt:
arbitration - award to be filed in court having jurisdiction over the matter submitted--award not invalidated by want of notice nor by the arbitrators accepting a fee--jurisdiction. - - ramachandra saheb on behalf of the appellant are dear authorities in support of the view that in cases like the present, omission to give notice to the respondent in no way invalidates the award......the facts bearing upon the question are these. there was a meeting on the 15th at which both the parties were present. further enquiry was then adjourned to the 20th. on the 16th the respondent sent exhibit v to the arbitrators purporting to revoke the submission. the last paragraph of the notice runs thus: 'i have cancelled the muchilika in this respect (in the matter of the submission) and withdrawn it from arbitration. there is no need that you should proceed with the enquiry any longer. i shall file a separate suit to obtain relief. take note of this.' the notice reached the hands of the arbitrators on the 19th. no meeting was held on the 20th owing to the absence of one of the arbitrators; on the 21st and 23rd the arbitrators proceeded with the case ex parte, the respondent not.....
Judgment:

1. The application for filing the award was, in our 81 opinion, rightly presented to the District Court, as the matter to which the arbitration related, involved a claim exceeding in value of Rs. 2,500 see Narsingh Das v. Ajodhya Prosad Sukul I.L.R. 31 Calc. 208 though the amount allowed under the award was less.

2. The next point for determination is whether the District Judge is right in holding that the award is invalid on the ground that notice of the meetings of the 21st and 23rd July was not given to the respondent. The facts bearing upon the question are these. There was a meeting on the 15th at which both the parties were present. Further enquiry was then adjourned to the 20th. On the 16th the respondent sent exhibit V to the arbitrators purporting to revoke the submission. The last paragraph of the notice runs thus: 'I have cancelled the Muchilika in this respect (in the matter of the submission) and withdrawn it from arbitration. There is no need that you should proceed with the enquiry any longer. I shall file a separate suit to obtain relief. Take note of this.' The notice reached the hands of the arbitrators on the 19th. No meeting Was held on the 20th owing to the absence of one of the arbitrators; on the 21st and 23rd the arbitrators proceeded with the case ex parte, the respondent not appearing on either date, and eventually gave the award. The observations in Harcorut v. Ramsbottone I.J. & W. 507 and Scott v. Vansandam 6 Q.B. 237 , 248 relied on by Mr. Ramachandra Saheb on behalf of the appellant are dear authorities in support of the view that in cases like the present, omission to give notice to the respondent in no way invalidates the award.

3. Passing to the remaining contention on behalf of the respondent, we are unable to agree that in the circumstances of the case the acceptance by the arbitrators of the offer of a fee for their services involves any misconduct. The evidence shows beyond doubt that the offer proceeded from the parties themselves, and was made at a meeting of the arbitrators at which both the parties were present, and that it was accepted formally, record thereof being made in the proceedings of the arbitrators. We must therefore reverse the decree of the District Judge and direct that the award be filed.

4. The respondent will pay the appellant's costs throughout.


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