Skip to content


R.A. Arunachala Iyah Vs. Louis Dreyfus and Co. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectArbitration
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported in(1928)54MLJ580
AppellantR.A. Arunachala Iyah
RespondentLouis Dreyfus and Co.
Cases ReferredWimshurst Hollick & Co. v. Barrow Ship
Excerpt:
- .....l.r. 2 q.b.d. 335 furnishes some analogy. the costs incurred before the arbitrator or umpire cannot be regarded as the costs of 'a proceeding in the high court', but are the costs of a tribunal unconnected with this court. the word costs in section 17 of the arbitration act and in section 35 of the civil procedure code refers to costs incurred in court. if there is a valid award and the award itself provided for the costs, then the matter rests on a different footing. but where, as in this case we hold that there is no valid reference to arbitration, we do not see what jurisdiction we have to pass an order as to costs of the award. the petition is dismissed. there will be no order as to costs.
Judgment:
ORDER

1. The question raised is new and there is very little to guide us. The decision in Swift & Co. v. Board of Trade L.R. (1926) 2 K.B. 131 does not help us. That in Wimshurst Hollick & Co. v. Barrow Ship-building Co. (1877) L.R. 2 Q.B.D. 335 furnishes some analogy. The costs incurred before the arbitrator or umpire cannot be regarded as the costs of 'a proceeding in the High Court', but are the costs of a tribunal unconnected with this Court. The word costs in Section 17 of the Arbitration Act and in Section 35 of the Civil Procedure Code refers to costs incurred in Court. If there is a valid award and the award itself provided for the costs, then the matter rests on a different footing. But where, as in this case we hold that there is no valid reference to arbitration, we do not see what jurisdiction we have to pass an order as to costs of the award. The petition is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.


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