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.

Ram Lal Singh Vs. Behari Singh

Ram Lal Singh vs Behari Singh

Type Court Judgment Court Allahabad Decided Apr 09, 1924
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/485157

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
Arbitration

Case Summary

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

Civil Procedure, Code (Act V of 1908), Section 115, Schedule II, para. 15 - Appeal -Reference to arbitration--Misconduct of arbitrator--Objection, decision of--Revision, whether lies. - - That objection is, in my opinion, well founded.

Key legal issue
Arbitration

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Ram Lal Singh

Respondent

Behari Singh

Legal References

Cases Referred
Ganga Sahai v. Beldeo Singh
Reported In
87Ind.Cas.371

Excerpt

civil procedure, code (act v of 1908), section 115, schedule ii, para. 15 - appeal -reference to arbitration--misconduct of arbitrator--objection, decision of--revision, whether lies. - - that objection is, in my opinion, well founded.daniels, j.1. in this case a preliminary objection is taken that no revision lies. that objection is, in my opinion, well founded. while the appeal was pending in the court below the parties agreed to refer their dispute to certain arbitrators. these arbitrators made an award. the award was attacked as vitiated by misconduct on the ground that the arbitrators made secret enquiries. it appears to have been common ground that they had made secret enquiries. the learned subordinate judge held that this amounted to misconduct and, therefore, entertained and decided the appeal from the munsif's decision with out reference to the arbitration. it may be that i should have come to a different conclusion on the legal question, but it cannot be said that the learned judge acted without jurisdiction or that he acted illegally or with material irregularity in deciding a point of law. which arose before him for decision and which he had jurisdiction to decide. a similar view was taken in the case of ganga sahai v. beldeo singh 65 ind. cas. 779 : (1922) a.i.r. (a.) 64 : 20 a.l.j. 117 which is practically on all fours with the present case.2. i, therefore, accept the preliminary objection and dismiss the application with costs.

Full Judgment

Daniels, J.

1. In this case a preliminary objection is taken that no revision lies. That objection is, in my opinion, well founded. While the appeal was pending in the Court below the parties agreed to refer their dispute to certain arbitrators. These arbitrators made an award. The award was attacked as vitiated by misconduct on the ground that the arbitrators made secret enquiries. It appears to have been common ground that they had made secret enquiries. The learned Subordinate Judge held that this amounted to misconduct and, therefore, entertained and decided the appeal from the Munsif's decision with out reference to the arbitration. It may be that I should have come to a different conclusion on the legal question, but it cannot be said that the learned Judge acted without jurisdiction or that he acted illegally or with material irregularity in deciding a point of law. which arose before him for decision and which he had jurisdiction to decide. A similar view was taken in the case of Ganga Sahai v. Beldeo Singh 65 Ind. Cas. 779 : (1922) A.I.R. (A.) 64 : 20 A.L.J. 117 which is practically on all fours with the present case.

2. I, therefore, accept the preliminary objection and dismiss the application with costs.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial