LexRIKHABDAS versus BALLABHDAS AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
(1) S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 475 contrary or differant from the procedure ex- pressly provided in the Code." The Court in that case held that in exercise of the powers under s. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 the Court cannot issue a commission for seizing books of account of plaintiff-a purpose for which a commission is not authorized to be issued bys. 75. The principle of the case is destructive of the submission of the appellants. Section 75 empow- ers the Court to issue a commission for purposes specified therein: even though it is not so expressly stated that there is no power to appoint a commis- sioner for other purposes, a prohibition to that effect is, in the view of the Court in Padam Sen 's case, implicit in s. 75. By parity of reasoning, if the power to issue injunctions may be exercised, if it is so prescribed by rules in the Orders in Schedule I, it must he deemed to be not exercisable in any other manner or for purposes other than those set out in O. 39 rr. l and 2. Appeal allowed. IUKHABDAS v. BALLABHDAS AND OTHERS (P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, A. K. SARKAR, and K. N. WANCHOO, JJ.) Arbitration-Award-Arbitrator filing in court umtatn1XJd award-Court'• power lo remit-Arbitration Act, 1940 (JO of 1940), 81. J.J(d), 14(1), 15(b) (c), 16(1)(c), 20-Code of Civil Procedure, J908(Act 6 of 1908), B. 161. An arbitration agreement was filed in court under s. 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, and an order of reference was made thereon. The arbitrator entered upon the reference and in due course filed his award in court. The award was however, unstamped and on objection raised that no judgment J96J Manoharlal Ckopra •• Rai Bohadur Rao Roja Seth Hiralal Shah J. 1961 1~1 RiJ;habdos v. BaU.bM•• 476 SUPREilffi COURT REPORTS [1962) SUPP. could be passed on such an award, the trial court passed an order remitting the award to the arbitrator for re-rnbmitting it to the court on duly stamped paper. The High Court took the view that want of stamp .would be an illegality apparent on the face of the award, which could therefore be remitted under s, 16( 1) ( c) of the Act. Held, that an unstamped award cannot Le remitted under s. 16(1) (c) of tbe Arbitration Act, 19~0, to the arbitra- tor to get it stamped, because want of stamp is a defect dehors the award or the decision of the arbitrator and docs not amount to an illegality apparent upon the face of it within the meaning of that section. Ramkumar v. Ku•ltalcharnl, A.I.R. 1928 Nag. 166 and Lakshmidumd v. Kalloolal, 1956 N.L.J. 504, disapproved. Nani Bala Saha v, Ram Gopal Saha, A.I.R. 1945 Cal. 19, approved. Held, further, that after making an award the arbitrator is functus officio, and s. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot therefore give the court power to direct the arbitrator lo make a fresh awa1d and re-submit it after writing it on proper stamp paper. Mordue v. Palmu, ( 1870) L.R. 6 Ch. App. 22, relied on. Dubitantt, it iJ doubtful if the fees and charges mentioned ins. 14(1) of the Arbitration act, 1940, include the stamp duty payable on the award. C1YIL APPELLATE Jt;IUSDICTION; Civil Appeal No. 144 of 1960. Appeal by special leave from the judgment a.nd order dated July 26, 1957, of the Madhya. Pradesh High Court in Civil Revision No. 966 of 1955. B. R. L. Iyengar and K. P. Bhatt, for the appellant. G. S. Pathak, S. N. Andley, Ram'"'hwar Nath and P. L. Vohra, for the respondents. 19GI. November 16. Tho Judgment of the Court was delivered by SARKAR, J.-In this caee an arbitration agree- ment had been filed in court under s. 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, and an order of reference made thereon. The arbitrator in due coUl'le enterod (1) S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 477 upon the reference and made and filed his award in court on July 14, 1955. Th9 award concerned partition of certain properties between the wife and children of one Bhairon Bux. The a.ward was however unstamped and un- registered. An objection was taken to a judgment being passed on such an award. On such objection, the trial court passed an order remitting the award to the arbitrator for re-submitting it to the court on a duly stamped paper and after getting it registered. Against this order the High Court at Nagpur was moved in revision. The learned Single Judge hearing the revision application took the view that the award required to be stamped. But he felt that it could not be remi
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.