Dhooli Atchayya and anr. Vs. Dhooli Peddenti and ors.

Dhooli Atchayya and anr. vs Dhooli Peddenti and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Apr 03, 1928

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/796958

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/796958
Court: Chennai
Decided On: Apr 03, 1928
Subject: Civil ;Arbitration

Case Summary

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

- - This has been so well established that it is unnecessary for me to give the reasons of .the rule.

Key legal issue: Civil ;Arbitration

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Dhooli Atchayya and anr.

Respondent

Dhooli Peddenti and ors.

Legal References

Cases Referred: Dalling v. Matchett
Reported In: AIR1928Mad983

Excerpt

- - this has been so well established that it is unnecessary for me to give the reasons of .the rule.ramesam, j.1. in this case the parties referred the disputes through court to five arbitrators, it being agreed that the opinion of the majority should prevail. two of the arbitrators did not act. in such a case the award is null and void if some do not act. this has been so well established that it is unnecessary for me to give the reasons of .the rule. in each of the eases in thammiraju v. bapiraju [1889] 12 mad. 113 abdulla v. m.v.b.s. firm and sons a.i.r. 1924 rangoon 153; m. appayya v. y. venkataswami [1918] 8 m.l.w. 171; and sanjeevappa v. venkatanarappa a.i.r. 1927 mad. 436 such an award was set aside by the high court in revision. the case in dalling v. matchett 94 e.r. 804 does not help the respondent. the order of the court below is set aside and the suit will be restored to file and disposed of according to law. the petitioners will have costs of this petition and of the costs of the hearing of the application in the lower court to pass a decree in terms of the award. other costs of the lower court will abide the result of the suit.

Full Judgment

Ramesam, J.

1. In this case the parties referred the disputes through Court to five arbitrators, it being agreed that the opinion of the majority should prevail. Two of the arbitrators did not act. In such a case the award is null and void if some do not act. This has been so well established that it is unnecessary for me to give the reasons of .the rule. In each of the eases in Thammiraju v. Bapiraju [1889] 12 Mad. 113 Abdulla v. M.V.B.S. Firm and Sons A.I.R. 1924 Rangoon 153; M. Appayya v. Y. Venkataswami [1918] 8 M.L.W. 171; and Sanjeevappa v. Venkatanarappa A.I.R. 1927 Mad. 436 such an award was set aside by the High Court in revision. The case in Dalling v. Matchett 94 E.R. 804 does not help the respondent. The order of the Court below is set aside and the suit will be restored to file and disposed of according to law. The petitioners will have costs of this petition and of the costs of the hearing of the application in the lower Court to pass a decree in terms of the award. Other costs of the lower Court will abide the result of the suit.

Same Parties Dhooli Atchayya and anr. vs Dhooli Peddenti and ors. Same Subject Civil ;Arbitration

Civil ;Arbitration