Skip to content


L. Ramu Naidu and anr. Vs. V. Nayanappa - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectArbitration
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1925Mad56
AppellantL. Ramu Naidu and anr.
RespondentV. Nayanappa
Cases Referred and Mir Ali v. Muhamad Hussain Sahib
Excerpt:
- .....and that it was the duty of the arbitrators merely to record the compromise and pass it on to the court to deal with. i am not referred to any reported ruling which supports this proposition. on the other hand, there are two reported rulings. deonarain rai v. jaisri [1885] 5 a.w.n. 259 and mir ali v. muhamad hussain sahib [1892] 12 a.w.n. 79 to the contrary, both of which refer to arbitrations in pending suits.2. i cannot see on principle why arbitrators should not accept a compromise of the parties before them and set out their award in terms thereof. such a proceeding is as much an adjudication of the case as is a decree of a court founded on a compromise. to admit that an award may be challenged on the ground that the arbitrators had not themselves independently considered and.....
Judgment:

Wallace, J.

1. The argument put forward in this case is that an award passed by arbitrators in a pending suit, which merely embodied a compromise of the parties themselves before the arbitrators is not a valid award and that it was the duty of the arbitrators merely to record the compromise and pass it on to the Court to deal with. I am not referred to any reported ruling which supports this proposition. On the other hand, there are two reported rulings. Deonarain Rai v. Jaisri [1885] 5 A.W.N. 259 and Mir Ali v. Muhamad Hussain Sahib [1892] 12 A.W.N. 79 to the contrary, both of which refer to arbitrations in pending suits.

2. I cannot see on principle why arbitrators should not accept a compromise of the parties before them and set out their award in terms thereof. Such a proceeding is as much an adjudication of the case as is a decree of a Court founded on a compromise. To admit that an award may be challenged on the ground that the arbitrators had not themselves independently considered and decided the matter, would be contrary to the principle laid down in paragraph 15 of the second schedule.

3. In my opinion the decision of the Lower Appellate Court is right and this Second Appeal is dismissed with costs.


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