Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Mahabir Vs. Manohar Singh

Mahabir vs Manohar Singh

Type Court Judgment Court Allahabad Decided Dec 04, 1923
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/467133

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Allahabad
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Civil

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Civil Procedure Code, Schedule II, paragraph 1 - Arbitration--Award based on a reference recorded by the court on the oral statement of the pleaders for the parties. -

Key legal issue
Civil

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Mahabir

Respondent

Manohar Singh

Legal References

Reported In
AIR1924All540; (1924)ILR46All208; 79Ind.Cas.816

Excerpt

civil procedure code, schedule ii, paragraph 1 - arbitration--award based on a reference recorded by the court on the oral statement of the pleaders for the parties. - .....dispute to a certain pleader named by them for decision. their statements were recorded by the court and a reference was made in accordance with their agreement. the arbitrator made an award, to which certain objections were taken by the defendants; but they did not there state that the reference was invalid because it was not in writing, or that they had not authorized their pleaders to make it. in fact the valcalatnama filed by the applicant in the court below expressly authorized the pleader concerned to enter into an agreement of arbitration. an objection is now taken that under paragraph 1 of the second schedule attached to the code of civil procedure, the agreement ought to have been in writing, but a record taken down of an oral statement made by the parties or their pleaders is as much an agreement in writing as a written application made by the parties or their pleaders themselves. the personality of the writer makes no difference. in shama sundram iyer v. abdul latif (1899) i.l.r. 27 calc. 61, and abdul humid v. riaz-ud-din (1907) i.l.r. 30 all. 32, it was accordingly held that where both the parties to a pending suit consented to a reference to arbitration and an order of reference was then and there made by the court in the presence of the parties, though not upon a written application, it was not open to the court to supersede that reference. an award is not invalid' merely because an application for an order of reference is not made in writing. in umed singh v. seth sobhag mal dhadha (1915) i.l.r. 43 calc. 290, their lordships of the privy council held that where a guardian ad litem of a minor party was in court and had assented to the application for reference to arbitration, the omission of the guardian to sign the application was immaterial. the application, therefore, fails and is rejected.

Full Judgment

Kanhaiya Lal, J.

1. This is an application in revision against an award which has been accepted by the court below in a suit pending before it. On the date of the hearing of that suit, the pleaders for the parties stated that they had agreed to arbitration and wanted to refer the matter in dispute to a certain pleader named by them for decision. Their statements were recorded by the court and a reference was made in accordance with their agreement. The arbitrator made an award, to which certain objections were taken by the defendants; but they did not there state that the reference was invalid because it was not in writing, or that they had not authorized their pleaders to make it. In fact the valcalatnama filed by the applicant in the court below expressly authorized the pleader concerned to enter into an agreement of arbitration. An objection is now taken that under paragraph 1 of the second schedule attached to the Code of Civil Procedure, the agreement ought to have been in writing, but a record taken down of an oral statement made by the parties or their pleaders is as much an agreement in writing as a written application made by the parties or their pleaders themselves. The personality of the writer makes no difference. In Shama Sundram Iyer v. Abdul Latif (1899) I.L.R. 27 Calc. 61, and Abdul Humid v. Riaz-ud-din (1907) I.L.R. 30 All. 32, it was accordingly held that where both the parties to a pending suit consented to a reference to arbitration and an order of reference was then and there made by the court in the presence of the parties, though not upon a written application, it was not open to the court to supersede that reference. An award is not invalid' merely because an application for an order of reference is not made in writing. In Umed Singh v. Seth Sobhag Mal Dhadha (1915) I.L.R. 43 Calc. 290, their Lordships of the Privy Council held that where a guardian ad litem of a minor party was in court and had assented to the application for reference to arbitration, the omission of the guardian to sign the application was immaterial. The application, therefore, fails and is rejected.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial