Protap Chunder Dey Vs. Toolsey Dass Dey

Protap Chunder Dey vs Toolsey Dass Dey

Type Court Judgment Court Kolkata Decided Jul 01, 1902

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/860696

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/860696
Court: Kolkata
Judge: Stephen, J.
Decided On: Jul 01, 1902
Subject: Arbitration

Case Summary

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

Arbitration - Reference to arbitration by the parties--Award--Leave to file by plaintiff, application for--Title-deeds--Discretionary power of Court to remit award for reconsideration to arbitrators--Arbitration Act (IX of 1899) Section 13--Civil Procedure Code (Act XIV of 1882) Section 606 to 626. -

Key legal issue: Arbitration

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Protap Chunder Dey

Respondent

Toolsey Dass Dey

Legal References

Reported In: (1902)ILR29Cal793

Excerpt

arbitration - reference to arbitration by the parties--award--leave to file by plaintiff, application for--title-deeds--discretionary power of court to remit award for reconsideration to arbitrators--arbitration act (ix of 1899) section 13--civil procedure code (act xiv of 1882) section 606 to 626. - .....in a suit and section 523 to 526, now superseded by the arbitration act, to arbitrations initiated by the parties.2. i therefore consider that i have a discretion to remit this award for the reconsideration of the arbitrators under section 13 of the arbitration act.3. the ground on which the application to file is resisted and on which i am asked to remit this award is, that the award orders that the plaintiff shall pay a sum of money to the defendant on the latter delivering up certain title-deeds, of which he denies having possession. does this amount to a finding that the defendant is in possession of the title-deeds? in my opinion, looking to the facts of the case, it does not. the affidavits show that though the question of possession was mentioned, it was never judicially enquired into, and that the arbitrators never really had their minds directed to the point, while the arbitration was proceeding, and the arbitrators themselves entertain different views, as to whether or not they decided the point. the award must therefore, be remitted to them to make a fresh award.4. mr. chowdhry. i ask the court to indicate to the arbitrator that they are to reconsider the part of the award which deals with the possession of the title-deeds.5. mr. chatterjee. i object and submit it is already mentioned in the judgment: there should be no order on the arbitrators.stephen j.6. i do not like to do that.7. mr. choudhry. i ask for costs.stephen j.8. i make no order as to costs.9. attorney for plaintiff: k. n. gangooly.10. attorney for defendant: m. n. bonnerjee.

Full Judgment

Stephen, J.

1. This is an, application to file an award made under the Arbitration Act of 1899. An objection has been taken to the award, and I have, been asked to remit it to the arbitrators. It is argued, however, that I have no power to do this on account of Section 520 of the Civil Procedure Code under which an award may not be remitted except on certain grounds which do not exist in this case. I do not think, however, that Section 520 applies to arbitrations under the Arbitration Act. Reading the Code and the Act together, it appears to me plain that Section 506 to 522 of the Code apply to arbitrations in a suit and Section 523 to 526, now superseded by the Arbitration Act, to arbitrations initiated by the parties.

2. I therefore consider that I have a discretion to remit this award for the reconsideration of the arbitrators under Section 13 of the Arbitration Act.

3. The ground on which the application to file is resisted and on which I am asked to remit this award is, that the award orders that the plaintiff shall pay a sum of money to the defendant on the latter delivering up certain title-deeds, of which he denies having possession. Does this amount to a finding that the defendant is in possession of the title-deeds? In my opinion, looking to the facts of the case, it does not. The affidavits show that though the question of possession was mentioned, it was never judicially enquired into, and that the arbitrators never really had their minds directed to the point, while the arbitration was proceeding, and the arbitrators themselves entertain different views, as to whether or not they decided the point. The award must therefore, be remitted to them to make a fresh award.

4. Mr. Chowdhry. I ask the Court to indicate to the arbitrator that they are to reconsider the part of the award which deals with the possession of the title-deeds.

5. Mr. Chatterjee. I object and submit it is already mentioned in the judgment: there should be no order on the arbitrators.

Stephen J.

6. I do not like to do that.

7. Mr. Choudhry. I ask for costs.

Stephen J.

8. I make no order as to costs.

9. Attorney for plaintiff: K. N. Gangooly.

10. Attorney for defendant: M. N. Bonnerjee.

Same Parties Protap Chunder Dey vs Toolsey Dass Dey Same Subject Arbitration Same Judge Stephen, J.

Arbitration