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.

Steel and ors. Vs. Robarts

Steel and ors. vs Robarts

Type Court Judgment Court Kolkata Decided Apr 04, 1881
~1 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/855899

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
Kolkata
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Criminal

Case Summary

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

Application on behalf of Arbitrators - Reference--Costs of Reference. -

Key legal issue
Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Steel and ors.

Respondent

Robarts

Legal References

Reported In
(1881)ILR6Cal809

Excerpt

application on behalf of arbitrators - reference--costs of reference. - wilson, j.1. decided that, where a matter is before arbitrators, it is out of the hands of the court; that although the civil procedure code gives power to the court to interfere in various ways in arbitration matters, it makes no provision for such an application as the present. such being the case, added to the fact that he considered that no sufficient reason for making the application had been advanced, the motion was dismissed with costs.

Full Judgment

Wilson, J.

1. Decided that, where a matter is before arbitrators, it is out of the hands of the Court; that although the Civil Procedure Code gives power to the Court to interfere in various ways in arbitration matters, it makes no provision for such an application as the present. Such being the case, added to the fact that he considered that no sufficient reason for making the application had been advanced, the motion was dismissed with costs.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial