REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

RAM CHANDER Appellant

V/S

JAMNA SHANKAR Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

NARAYANDAS V. KHEMA [REFERRED TO]
ROSHANLAL V. FIRM BRIDHI CHAN [REFERRED TO]
SWASTIKA SCIENTIFIC ENGINEERING CO. V. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
RATANJI VIRPAL AND CO. V. DHIRAJLAL MANILAL [REFERRED TO]
SELVARAYAN SAMSON V. AMALORPAVNADAM [REFERRED TO]
BALDEO SAHAI V. ABDUL RAHIM [REFERRED TO]
THAWARDAS FHERUMAL VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
GANESHMAL BHAWARLAL VS. KESORAM COTTON MILLS LTD [REFERRED TO]
R M MUTHUKRISHNAN CHETTIAR VS. R M MUTHALAGIRI CHETTIAR [REFERRED TO]
PUROHIT SWARUPNARAIN VS. GOPINATH [REFERRED TO]
RAJESHWAR PRASAD SINGH VS. AMBIKA PRASAD SINGH [REFERRED TO]
KUAR NEHAL SINGH VS. KUAR KHUSHHAL SINGH [REFERRED TO]
BENGAL NAGPUR RAILWAY CO LTD VS. RUTTANJI RAMJI [REFERRED TO]
(ARDHIKAI) LAKSHMAMMA VS. GORLE APPADU [REFERRED TO]
BANKEY LAL VS. CHOTEY MIYAN ABDUL SHAKUR [REFERRED TO]
AJAZ ALI VS. MTZOHRA [REFERRED TO]
KODURI KRISHNAMMA VS. KODURI CHENNAYYA AND ANR. [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision application by the defendants in a suit which was referred to arbitration through the intervention of the court against an order of the Civil Judge sojat pronouncing judgment and granting decree according to the award under section 17 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 on the ground that no notice as contemplated under Section 14 (2) was given and they were consequently deprived of an opportunity of filing objections against the award.

(2.) THE application was contested on behalf of the plaintiffs. A number of preliminary objections were taken. But before going into them it is necessary to state the facts.

(3.) SO far as Mangilal and Ramchander are concerned they were neither present personally nor through counsel on 23-12-54 and it cannot be said that notice under Section 14 (2) was given to them.

Click here to view full judgment.

RAM CHANDER Vs. JAMNA SHANKAR

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address