Skip to content


Muthukaruppa Kone and anr. Vs. Veerabhadra Kone and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1916Mad583; 29Ind.Cas.49
AppellantMuthukaruppa Kone and anr.
RespondentVeerabhadra Kone and anr.
Cases ReferredFollowing Bhagirath v. Ram Ghulam
Excerpt:
arbitration - award, suit on--failure to file award in court within 6 months, whether bars suit--award, whether in nature of foreign judgment--punchayatdars, if entitled to administer to witness any reasonable form of oath agreed upon by parties--civil procedure code (act v of 1908), schedule ii, para. 20--limitation act (ix of 1908), schedule i, article 178. - .....the date of the cause of action that this suit is based on the award (exhibit e).2. the learned district munsif did not raise the most material issue in such a case, namely, whether the award was invalid owing to the misconduct of the arbitrators. he raised three other questions and fell into two serious errors in deciding those questions. he held that the suit was barred by limitation because no application was made within six months of the award to have it filed in court. a suit lies on an award even though it has not been filed in court [see rani bhagoti v. rani chandan 12 i.a. 67 : 4 sar. p.c.j. 624 : 9 ind. jur. 320 and ghulam khan v. muhammad hassan 29 c.p 167 : 4 bom. l.r. 161 : 25 p.r. 1902.3. the learned munsif further held that the award was in the nature of a judgment of a.....
Judgment:

Sadasiva Aiyar, J.

1. I am satisfied on a perusal of the 6th paragraph of the plaint and the recital in the plaint about the date of the cause of action that this suit is based on the award (Exhibit E).

2. The learned District Munsif did not raise the most material issue in such a case, namely, whether the award was invalid owing to the misconduct of the arbitrators. He raised three other questions and fell into two serious errors in deciding those questions. He held that the suit was barred by limitation because no application was made within six months of the award to have it filed in Court. A suit lies on an award even though it has not been filed in Court [See Rani Bhagoti v. Rani Chandan 12 I.A. 67 : 4 Sar. P.C.J. 624 : 9 Ind. Jur. 320 and Ghulam Khan v. Muhammad Hassan 29 C.P 167 : 4 Bom. L.R. 161 : 25 P.R. 1902.

3. The learned Munsif further held that the award was in the nature of a judgment of a foreign Court and he was, therefore, entitled to go into the merits of the award. He was clearly in error in that point also.

4. Following Bhagirath v. Ram Ghulam 4 A.P 283 :A.W.N. (1882) 34 I hold that there is nothing illegal in parties agreeing before punchiayatdars to have evidence taken after the administration of any reasonable form of oath to witnesses.

5. There is, no doubt, a finding by the Munsif that a statement in the award of the arbitrators, that the defendants did not appear at Nayinar Koil on 22nd December 1911 to take the oath as agreed upon by the defendants, did not represent the true state of facts. But I am unable to accept the finding as a satisfactory one and the District Munsif does not find that the arbitrators, in making that statement and acting upon the footing that the facts were as found in that statement, were guilty of misconduct.

6. In the result, I set aside the judgment and decree of the District Munsif and remand the suit to him for disposal de novo, after raising, and deciding the question whether the arbitrators' award was invalid owing to their; misconduct and also with reference to the above observations.

7. Costs will abide the result.


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