High CourtsDivision Bench(1915) 04 MAD CK 0012

Yella Hanumayya alias Hanuman-Thappa vs Mullangi Chinna Doddappa

Madras High Court · Decided on 26 April 1915 · Citation: AIR 1916 Mad 963 : 29 Ind. Cas. 512

HON’BLE JUDGES
Spencer, J · Sadasiva Aiyar, J

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

13 paragraphs · 274 words
1.

The preliminary objection must be upheld, namely, that under Schedule II, paragraph 16, Clause (2), Civil Procedure Code, no appeal lies from

the decree framed on a judgment pronounced by the Court according to the award of arbitrators, after the Court had refused an application to set

aside that award as invalid.

2.

The appeal must, therefore, be dismissed with costs.

3.

We are asked by the appellant''s learned Counsel to set aside the award treating the appeal as a petition in revision u/s 115, Civil Procedure

Code. His contention is that the District Court had no jurisdiction to refer the matters in dispute to arbitration even by the consent of parties. He

relies in support of this contention on the case in Ghellabhai Atmaram v. Nandu Bai 21 B.P 335.

4.

In the first place, we are not clear that the observations relied on from the judgment in Ghellabhai Atmaram v. Nandu Bai 21 B.P 335 which

appear to be obiter dicta, have not been couched by that Court in too wide terms. In the second place, the contention that the District Court had

no jurisdiction to refer the dispute to arbitration was not taken in the lower Court or even in the grounds of the appeal petition sought to be

converted into a revision petition. In the third place it is a matter of discretion in this Court to interfere in revision u/s 115, and as we are not

satisfied that substantial justice has not been done between the parties by the order of the District Court. We do not think that it is a fit case for

interference in revision.