KRIPA SINDHU BISWAS
Vs. SUDHA SINDHU BISWAS
LAWS(CAL)-1973-4-15
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on
April 06,1973
KRIPA SINDHU BISWAS
Appellant
VERSUS
SUDHA SINDHU BISWAS
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
MUHAMMED NAWAZ KHAN V. ALAM KHAN [REFERRED TO]BHAJAHARI SAHA BANIKYA V. BEHARY LAL BASAK [REFERRED TO]
KESSOWJI ISSUR V. GREAT INDIAN PENINSULA RAILWAY [REFERRED TO]
RAM RATAN SAHU V. MOHANT SAHU [REFERRED TO]
RAMYAD SAHU V. BINDESWARI KUMAR UPADHAY [REFERRED TO]
UDIT CHOBEY V. RASHIKA PRASAD UPADHYA [REFERRED TO]
KRISHNA PANDA V. BALARAM PANDA [REFERRED TO]
SARDOOL SINGH V. HARI SINGH [REFERRED TO]
LACHMESHWAR PRASAD SHUKUL V. KESHWAR LAL CHAUDHURI [REFERRED TO]
HAZARI MULL V. JANAKI PROSAD [REFERRED TO]
NATHULAL KHUNILAL V. BEHARILAL BISHESHWARLAL [REFERRED TO]
MANICK LAL MEMANI V. SHIVA JUTE BAILING LTD. [REFERRED TO]
MUNSHILAL AND SONS V. MODI BROS. [REFERRED TO]
SURINDER KUMAR VS. GIAN CHAND [REFERRED TO]
KASHINATHSA YAMOSA KABADI VS. NARSINGSA BHASKARSA KABADI [REFERRED TO]
K VENKATARAMIAH VS. A SEETHARAMA REDDY [REFERRED TO]
NAIR SERVICE SOCIETY LIMITED VS. K C ALEXANDER [REFERRED TO]
SATISH KUMAR VS. SURINDER KUMAR [REFERRED TO]
SAIT PAMANDASS SUGNARAM VS. T S MANIKYAM PILLAI [REFERRED TO]
SETH PAMANDAS SUGHARAM DIED VS. T S MANIKYAM PILLAI [REFERRED TO]
SAHA AND CO VS. ISHAR SINGH KRIPAL SINGH AND CO [REFERRED TO]
PUSHRAJ PURANMAL VS. CLIVE MILLS CO LTD [REFERRED TO]
JAYANTA MOHAN CHATTERJEE VS. JAGAT MOHAN CHATTERJEE [REFERRED TO]
O MOHAMED YUSUF LEVAI SAHEB VS. S HAJEE MOHAMMED HUSSAIN ROWTHER [REFERRED TO]
SEONARAIN LAL VS. PRABHU CHAND [REFERRED TO]
ANANTA LAL PAKRASI VS. JNANADA SUNDARI DEBYA [REFERRED TO]
PARSOTIM THAKUR VS. LAL MOHAR THAKUR [REFERRED TO]
MAHOMED KHALEEL SHIRAZI VS. LES TANNERIES LYONNAISES [REFERRED TO]
KANHAI LAL VS. BRIJ LAL [REFERRED TO]
Cited Judgements :-
WEST BENGAL STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD VS. BONGAON ELECTRIC SUPPLY CO LTD [LAWS(CAL)-1974-7-5] [REFERRED TO]GOEL ASSOCIATES VS. DIN COOP GROUP HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED [LAWS(DLH)-1997-10-27] [REFERRED . 2.]
ANTYAKULA ESWARA RAO VS. GUDLA KUMARASWAMY [LAWS(APH)-1999-10-65] [REFERRED TO]
MELANIE FIALHO VS. MALCOLM FRANCIS PEREIRA [LAWS(BOM)-1993-3-67] [REFERRED TO]
ASHOK TUBES VS. STEEL INDUSTRIES OF INDIA [LAWS(BOM)-1997-12-23] [REFERRED TO]
BAIJNATH PROSAD SHAH VS. GAJANAND AGARWALLA [LAWS(CAL)-1980-8-33] [REFERRED TO]
K P LOGANATHAN VS. K R S MANX ALIAS K R SUBRAMANIAN [LAWS(MAD)-1991-12-54] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
Laik, J. -
(1.)IN this important case there is some useful discussion on the law of arbitration. I have to plough through several authorities. Doctrines are laid down which would not be likely to introduce some further uncertainty into this branch of law. I did not enter at length into the technical arguments that were addressed to us, as any observation made on the same, might open the way to easy defeat of the provisions of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The time has long pone by since this Court showed any disposition to sit as a Court of Appeal on awards in respect of matters of fact.
(2.)THE case has a chameleon-like history. It has greatly protracted the hearing and added to the costs. In this unfortunate litigation the disputants are own brothers. THE defendant No. 1 appellant is a legal practitioner in the Howrah Court THE plaintiff respondent No. 1 is a medical man.
This appeal is presented from a judgment and decree passed in part, in a suit for partition in the preliminary form. The plaintiff's 1/3rd share was declared. There was a direction by the Trial Court that the mother of the fighting brothers (Sm. Dakshabala, Defendant No. 4 and Respondent No. 5 in the appeal) is to be given one-fourth share at the time of the final allotment in lieu of maintenance. The plaintiffs prayer for accounts and for setting aside the documents of sales are dismissed. Though the plaint sought the general account and partition, the suit is avowedly one to set aside the award which the Respondent contended, was not binding on him.
(3.)FOR the purpose of duly considering the decree appealed against, it will be necessary to take a short view of the circumstances which gave rise to the dispute and which led to the making up of an award by the arbitrators. It is shaped in the following way.
(2.)THE case has a chameleon-like history. It has greatly protracted the hearing and added to the costs. In this unfortunate litigation the disputants are own brothers. THE defendant No. 1 appellant is a legal practitioner in the Howrah Court THE plaintiff respondent No. 1 is a medical man.
This appeal is presented from a judgment and decree passed in part, in a suit for partition in the preliminary form. The plaintiff's 1/3rd share was declared. There was a direction by the Trial Court that the mother of the fighting brothers (Sm. Dakshabala, Defendant No. 4 and Respondent No. 5 in the appeal) is to be given one-fourth share at the time of the final allotment in lieu of maintenance. The plaintiffs prayer for accounts and for setting aside the documents of sales are dismissed. Though the plaint sought the general account and partition, the suit is avowedly one to set aside the award which the Respondent contended, was not binding on him.
(3.)FOR the purpose of duly considering the decree appealed against, it will be necessary to take a short view of the circumstances which gave rise to the dispute and which led to the making up of an award by the arbitrators. It is shaped in the following way.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.