JAMNAPRASAD AGARWAL Vs. MAHESH PRASAD SHUKLA
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
MAHESH PRASAD SHUKLA
Click here to view full judgement.
BHARGAVA J -
(1.) THIS appeal arises out of an application which was made by the first respondent under section 14 of the Arbitration Act in the trial Court. The trial Court held the said application to be barred by time and dismissed it. The appellant, who was one of the parties impleaded in the said application, has filed this appeal.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts are these. The appellant agreed to purchase a house belonging to the second respondent for Rs. 11, 000 on 28-3-1959 and he paid Rs. 9, 000 out of the agreed sale price to him on that date. The agreement is Ex. P-1 on record. The appellant then paid a further sum of Rs. 1. 000 towards the sale price to the second respondent on 6-4-1960. According to the terms of Ex. P-1, the sale deed was to be executed within one year. However, no sale deed was executed within that time and on 6-4-1960 under the agreement Ex. P-1-A the parties extended the time of the execution of the sale deed till 28-3-1961. No sale deed was executed within this extended period also, but on 28-3-1962 the appellant and the second respondent entered into a fresh agreement whereby they agreed to the total sale price being raised to Rs. 14, 000. The appellant paid Rs. 1, 000 to the second respondent on 28-3-1962 and time for execution of the sale deed was extended by one year. A notice was then given by the appellant to the second respondent on 1-7-1963 requiring the respondent to execute the sale deed after receiving from the appellant the remaining price. Thereafter the appellant and second respondent agreed to refer their dispute to the arbitration of the first respondent Shri Mahesh Prasad Shukla, Advocate. The arbitrator entered on the reference on 8-8-1963. However, he made his award on 11-4-1965 and filed it in Court on 20-10-1965 impleading the appellant Jamnaprasad and Dwarkaprasad as non-applicants in the application. He prayed that the award made by him may be made a rule of the Court and a decree may be passed in accordance with the award.
The first respondent in his award held that the real nature of the transaction between the parties was that of a loan and the appellant Jamna Prasad was entitled to recover from Dwarkaprasad the amount of Rs. 11,000.
(3.) THE second respondent urged in reply to the application of the first respondent under section 14, inter alia, that as the award was not filed within thirty days of its having been made, it was barred under Article 119 of the new Limitation Act (corresponding to Article 178 of the Limitation Act, 1908). THE second objection raised was that as the award had not been made within four months of the arbitrator-respondent having entered on the reference and as the time was not got extended by the Court, the award could not be made a rule of the Court.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.