Skip to content


Sheikh Esuf Rowther Alias A.S. Mohammed Yusuf and ors. Vs. Sheikh Davad Rowther and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectArbitration
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Revn. Petn. No. 228 of 1949
Judge
Reported inAIR1951Mad658; (1951)IMLJ93
ActsArbitration Act, 1940 - Sections 17; ;Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Sections 115; Limitation Act - Schedule - Article 158
AppellantSheikh Esuf Rowther Alias A.S. Mohammed Yusuf and ors.
RespondentSheikh Davad Rowther and anr.
Appellant AdvocateR. Gopalaswami Iyengar, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateM.S. Venkatarama Iyer and ;M.C. Rajagopalan, Advs.
DispositionRevision allowed
Excerpt:
- .....in o. s. no. 177 of 1947 & giving a decree in terms of it in the following circumstances. a suit was filed by the pltfs for recovery of possession of properties alleging that they acquired title to two-thirds shares in the plaint house under two sale deeds, exs. a. 5 & a. 6 dated 5-6-1912 & a settlement deed ex. a. 10 dated 10-1-1947 respectively. the suit was contested by the defts on the grounds covered by the various issues raised in the suit. 2. while the trial of the suit was proceeding, the parties agreed to refer the matter to the arbitration of one mohamed abu bucker, & a memorandum of agreement was filed into ct setting out the terms of the reference to arbitration. the arbitrator filed his award on 19-11-1948. the learned dist munsif without giving any time to the.....
Judgment:

Chandra Reddi, J.

1. This revn petn is filed by the defts against the order of the Dist Munsif of Mannargudi accepting the award passed by an arbitrator in O. S. No. 177 of 1947 & giving a decree in terms of it in the following circumstances. A suit was filed by the pltfs for recovery of possession of properties alleging that they acquired title to two-thirds shares in the plaint house under two sale deeds, Exs. A. 5 & A. 6 dated 5-6-1912 & a settlement deed Ex. A. 10 dated 10-1-1947 respectively. The suit was contested by the defts on the grounds covered by the various issues raised in the suit.

2. While the trial of the suit was proceeding, the parties agreed to refer the matter to the arbitration of one Mohamed Abu Bucker, & a memorandum of agreement was filed into Ct setting out the terms of the reference to arbitration. The arbitrator filed his award on 19-11-1948. The learned Dist Munsif without giving any time to the parties concerned passed a decree observing that it was conceded that no question of any time for objections to the award, as in a case of reference through Ct, arose & that no time for objections was asked for. Against this order of the trial Ct accepting the award on the basis of which a decree was passed the present civil revn petn is filed.

3. It is contended in this civil revn petn, that the order of the learned Dist Munsif accepting the award without allowing the necessary time for the filing of objection is illegal & is opposed to the plain wording of Section 17 Arbitration Act. Section 17 provides that;.

'Where the court sees no cause to remit the award of any of the matters referred to arbitration for reconsideration or to set aside the award, the court, shall, after the time for making an application to set aside the award has expired, or such application having been made, after refusing it, proceed to pronounce judgment according to the award, and upon the judgment so pronounced a decree shall follow and no appeal shall lie from such decree except on the ground that it is in excess of, or-not otherwise in accordance with, the award.'

It is clear from a perusal of this section that a Ct can pass a decree on the award only alter the expiry of time to file objections to awards The time provided in Article 158, Limitation Act, for objections to the award is 30 days tram the date of notice of the filing of the award, irrespective of the fact whether the parties applied for time or not. It was also urged before me that there was no question of the parties applying for time, as the Ct took up the matter on the very date on which the award was filed & disposed it of immediately & the parties had no time even to apply for time to file objections to the award. Whether the parties applied for time or not, it is the duty cast upon the Ct to allow 30 days time to lapse between the filing of the award & the passing of the decree on the basis of the award. On the face of it, the decree passed by the learned Dist Munsif without allowing the requisite time to lapse as required under the provisions of Section 17, Arbitration Act, read with Article 158, Limitation Act, is illegal & unsustainable. I therefore set aside the decree of the trial Ct & direct it to issue the necessary notices to the parties concerned & give them sufficient time to file objections to the award & dispose of the suit according to law.

4. The civil revn petn is therefore allowed,but in the circumstances of the case I make noorder as to costs.


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