Subbiah Iyer Vs. Subramania Iyer and ors.

Subbiah Iyer vs Subramania Iyer and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided May 07, 1908

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/779736

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

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/779736
Court: Chennai
Decided On: May 07, 1908
Subject: Civil

Case Summary

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

- - 1. This appeal raises an interesting question as to which there is apparently no precise authority.

Key legal issue: Civil

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Subbiah Iyer

Respondent

Subramania Iyer and ors.

Legal References

Cases Referred: George v. Vastian Soury I.L.R.
Reported In: (1908)18MLJ485

Excerpt

- - 1. this appeal raises an interesting question as to which there is apparently no precise authority......to the revised award, and a decree has followed thereon, an appeal wirlie from such decree on the ground that the order of remittal under section 520, civil procedure code, was wrong and that the original award ought to have been accepted and acted on. section 522, civil procedure code, says that no appeal shall lie from the decree so passed except in so far as the decree is in excess of, or not in accordance with, the award, and this, in our opinion, means the award according to which judgment was given, which is, of course, the revised award. the present decree is in accordance with the revised award, and, in our opinion, section 522, civil procedure code, bars an appeal on the ground that the earlier order of remittal under section 520, civil procedure code, was wrongly made.2. it was not contended that an appeal would lie against a decree passed by the court in accordance with the award on the ground that the court had improperly refused an application for an order of remittal under section 520, civil procedure code, and the policy of the law appears to be to refuse to allow appeals against decrees in accordance with awards on the ground either that an order under section 520, civil procedure code, was improperly made or improperly refused.3. the decision of the privy council in ghulain khan v. muhammad hassain i.l.r.(1901) c 185 shews that the provisions of section 522, civil procedure code, as to appeal must be strictly enforced. the case of george v. vastian soury i.l.r. (1898) m. 202 and the cases there cited are not in point as in each of those cases after the order of remittal under section 520, civil procedure code, had been made, the arbitrators refused to reconsider their award which consequently became void under section 521, civil procedure code, and the court proceeded to try the case and pass a decree in the ordinary way.4. the appeal must be allowed and the decree of the subordinate judge set aside and that of the district munsif restored,.....

Full Judgment

1. This appeal raises an interesting question as to which there is apparently no precise authority. The question is, whether after the Court has remitted an award to the arbitrators under Section 520, Civil Procedure Code, and the arbitrators have submitted a revised award and the Court has given judgment under Section 522, Civil Procedure Code, according to the revised award, and a decree has followed thereon, an appeal wirlie from such decree on the ground that the order of remittal under Section 520, Civil Procedure Code, was wrong and that the original award ought to have been accepted and acted on. Section 522, Civil Procedure Code, says that no appeal shall lie from the decree so passed except in so far as the decree is in excess of, or not in accordance with, the award, and this, in our opinion, means the award according to which judgment was given, which is, of course, the revised award. The present decree is in accordance with the revised award, and, in our opinion, Section 522, Civil Procedure Code, bars an appeal on the ground that the earlier order of remittal under Section 520, Civil Procedure Code, was wrongly made.

2. It was not contended that an appeal would lie against a decree passed by the Court in accordance with the award on the ground that the Court had improperly refused an application for an order of remittal under Section 520, Civil Procedure Code, and the policy of the law appears to be to refuse to allow appeals against decrees in accordance with awards on the ground either that an order under Section 520, Civil Procedure Code, was improperly made or improperly refused.

3. The decision of the Privy Council in Ghulain Khan v. Muhammad Hassain I.L.R.(1901) C 185 shews that the provisions of Section 522, Civil Procedure Code, as to appeal must be strictly enforced. The case of George v. Vastian Soury I.L.R. (1898) M. 202 and the cases there cited are not in point as in each of those cases after the order of remittal under section 520, Civil Procedure Code, had been made, the arbitrators refused to reconsider their award which consequently became void under Section 521, Civil Procedure Code, and the Court proceeded to try the case and pass a decree in the ordinary way.

4. The appeal must be allowed and the decree of the Subordinate Judge set aside and that of the District Munsif restored, with costs here and in the lower appellate Court.

Same Parties Subbiah Iyer vs Subramania Iyer and ors. Same Subject Civil

Civil