NILKANTHA SIDRAMAPPA NINGASHETTI Vs. KASHINATH SOMANNA NINGASHETTI
LAWS(SC)-1961-4-73
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: BOMBAY)
Decided on
April 28,1961
NILKANTHA SIDRAMAPPA NINGASHETTI
Appellant
VERSUS
KASHINATH SOMANNA NINGASHETTI
Respondents
Cited Judgements :-
DEO NARAIN CHOUDHARY VS. NARAIN CHOUDHARY [LAWS(SC)-2000-10-45] [REFERRED TO]BAHADUR SINGH VS. FULESHWAR SINGH [LAWS(PAT)-1968-7-4] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF BIHAR VS. LIASON AND CONTRACTS [LAWS(PAT)-1982-11-1] [REFERRED TO]
ZONAL MANAGER EAST FOOS CORPORATION OF INDIA VS. RANJIT KUMAR [LAWS(PAT)-1996-9-36] [REFERRED TO]
KHAJA MOINUDDIN VS. UPPULA VEERAIAH [LAWS(APH)-1970-2-15] [REFERRED TO]
GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY GHAZIABAD VS. S K GUPTA [LAWS(ALL)-1999-12-45] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. CHADHA ENGINEERING WORKS [LAWS(DLH)-2010-12-269] [REFERRED TO]
KAILASH NATH GUPTA VS. BRIJ MOHAN [LAWS(ALL)-2007-4-206] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. UNION BUILDERS [LAWS(CAL)-1985-2-19] [REFERRED TO]
IISCO UJJAINE PIPE AND FOUNDRY CO LTD VS. OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR [LAWS(CAL)-2009-7-32] [REFERRED TO]
B K GOOYEE VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [LAWS(CAL)-1965-2-12] [REFERRED TO]
BINANI PROPERTIES PRIVATE LTD VS. M GULAMALI ABDUL HOSSAIN AND CO [LAWS(CAL)-1966-8-12] [REFERRED TO]
KARTAR SINGH VS. MOHAMAYA GENERAL FINANCE CO PRIVATE LIMITED [LAWS(DLH)-1971-4-6] [REFERRED TO]
REGISTRAR UNIVERSITY OF PUNE VS. KELKAR AND KELKAR, PUNE [LAWS(BOM)-1988-9-60] [REFERRED]
SUSHILKUMAR NEMKUMAR PORWAL VS. NEMKUMAR KESRIMAL PORWAL [LAWS(BOM)-1998-8-66] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. NEELAM ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTION COMPANY [LAWS(SC)-2010-3-60] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. M K SARKAR [LAWS(SC)-2009-12-79] [REFERRED TO]
INDIAN RAYON CORPORATION LIMITED VS. RAUNAQ AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [LAWS(SC)-1988-8-31] [RELIED ON]
S S KADER IBRAHIM ROWTHER VS. S SHEIK MOHAMED ALIAS S MOHAMED ROWTHER [LAWS(MAD)-1990-2-51] [REFERRED TO]
THIRU. K.PALANISWAMY VS. THIRU O.PANNEERSELVAM [LAWS(MAD)-2022-9-50] [REFERRED TO]
DEVANDAS KISHNANI VS. NANIKRAM KISHNANI [LAWS(BOM)-1992-1-2] [REFERRED TO]
BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD VS. HARYANA TELECOM LTD [LAWS(DLH)-2010-8-51] [REFERRED TO]
LACHHMAN DASS VS. VEER FINANCE COMPANY [LAWS(DLH)-1982-11-20] [REFERRED TO]
J N CONSTRUCTIONS VS. NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE [LAWS(DLH)-1993-10-40] [REFERRED]
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. NASIR CHHANNUMAL SHAIKH [LAWS(BOM)-2004-8-3] [REFERRED TO]
GENERAL MARKETING AND MANUFACTURING COMPANY LIMITED VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-1996-2-34] [REFERRED]
HARI SHANKAR GUPTA VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-1974-2-19] [REFERRED]
THE DAY LIGHT FINANCIERS (P) LTD. VS. GURBAKHSH SINGH AND ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-1969-12-26] [REFERRED TO]
ALVEL SALES VS. DUJADWALA INDUSTRIES [LAWS(MAD)-1977-6-16] [REFERRED TO]
SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER VS. ARUN KUMAR PATTANAIK [LAWS(ORI)-1994-8-31] [REFERRED TO]
ESSAR CONSTRUCTION VS. N P RAMA KRISHNA REDDY [LAWS(SC)-2000-5-87] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. AJIT RAM JAIN [LAWS(PAT)-1984-4-13] [RELIED ON]
BIHAR STATE TOURISM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED VS. RAM PADARATH SHARMA [LAWS(PAT)-1996-11-47] [RELIED ON]
RAMAN GOPI VS. KUNJU RAMAN UTHAMAN [LAWS(KER)-2011-9-52] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF KARNATAKA VS. SAMARTH CONSTRUCTIONS [LAWS(KAR)-2000-6-9] [REFERRED TO]
KEMPEGOWDA VS. NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY [LAWS(KAR)-2007-7-64] [REFERRED TO]
GIAN KAUR VS. S ATMA SINGH [LAWS(J&K)-1978-8-13] [REFERRED TO]
M/S. PASORI ASSOCIATED CONSTRUCTION CO. VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER [LAWS(GAU)-1974-3-2] [REFERRED TO]
RAMPAL JOSHI VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-1997-8-23] [REFERRED TO]
AGRA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AGRA VS. EAST INDIA HOTELS LTD [LAWS(ALL)-1999-10-52] [REFERRED TO]
CHATURBHUJ SOHANLAL VS. CLIVE MILLS CO LTD [LAWS(CAL)-1963-7-9] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF WEST BENGAL VS. L M DAS [LAWS(CAL)-1970-6-28] [REFERRED]
STATE OF WEST BENGAL VS. L M DAS [LAWS(CAL)-1976-2-22] [REFERRED TO]
RAM BEHARI MEHROTRA VS. SMARTS PRIVATE LIMITED [LAWS(DLH)-1972-5-6] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. BUILD INDIA CONSTRUCTION SYSTEMS [LAWS(BOM)-1999-7-110] [REFERRED TO]
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD VS. PUNAM CHAND JAIN [LAWS(CAL)-1982-2-4] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF WEST BENGAL VS. AND A MONDAL [LAWS(CAL)-1984-9-19] [REFERRED TO]
MA ENGINEERING AND CO VS. STATE [LAWS(CAL)-1985-4-30] [REFERRED TO]
J N CONSTRUCTIONS VS. NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION [LAWS(DLH)-1993-9-73] [REFERRED TO]
CHANDRA SHEKHAR JAISWAL VS. SHASHI SHEKHAR JAISWAL [LAWS(ALL)-2017-8-273] [REFERRED TO]
SURESH CHANDRA VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2014-7-235] [REFERRED TO]
BISHNUPADA BIRING VS. ARDHENDU SEKHAR BIRING [LAWS(CAL)-2019-5-8] [REFERRED TO]
CHHOTU KHAN VS. JEEWAN KHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-1983-7-11] [REFERRED TO]
BHASIN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY PVT. LTD. VS. BIHAR RAJYA PUL NIRMAN NIGAM LTD. [LAWS(PAT)-2016-2-22] [REFERRED TO]
BHARAT ALUMINIUM COMPANY LTD VS. HUKUM CHAND STONE AND LIME CO KATNI [LAWS(MPH)-1985-1-10] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS. HEERA SINGH [LAWS(RAJ)-2000-8-45] [REFERRED TO]
OIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LTD VS. NIPPON STEEL CORPORATION LTD [LAWS(SC)-2006-11-20] [REFERRED TO]
HARBANS SINGH VS. SARBJIT SINGH [LAWS(P&H)-2000-7-135] [REFERRED TO]
CHHABILA SINGH VS. SUMITRA DEVI [LAWS(PAT)-1985-4-18] [REFERRED TO]
SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA VS. V HARISHBABU [LAWS(SC)-1996-7-51] [RELIED ON]
RAJIV KUMAR GUPTA VS. SUSHAM SINGLA AND OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-2015-11-258] [REFERRED TO]
T RAJAN VS. KOTAK SECURITIES LTD [LAWS(KER)-2006-10-59] [REFERRED TO]
H.P. STATE FOREST CORPORATION VS. CHARAN SINGH AND COMPANY [LAWS(HPH)-2002-11-7] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. S. PREETHY [LAWS(KER)-2014-2-16] [REFERRED TO]
NAGARBHAI MOTIBHAI MAKWANA AND CO VS. DISTRICT PANCHAYAT MEHSANA [LAWS(GJH)-1983-3-6] [REFERRED]
UMESH CHANDRA PAUL VS. SURESH CHANDRA PAUL [LAWS(GAU)-1994-2-12] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. O NARAYANA [LAWS(APH)-2008-7-110] [REFERRED TO]
AMINA BI KASKAR VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2011-7-376] [REFERRED TO]
REGISTRAR, UNIVERSITY OF PUNE VS. KELKAR AND KELKAR [LAWS(BOM)-1988-9-54] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. SURINDER KUMAR KHOSLA AND CO [LAWS(DLH)-2008-9-19] [REFERRED TO]
RAJKUMARI VS. KRISHNAKUMARI [LAWS(BOM)-2014-7-269] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF U P VS. TEXMACO LTD [LAWS(ALL)-2007-10-111] [REFERRED TO]
NANKOO RAM AND OTHERS VS. KALYAN DAS AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-1968-5-43] [REFERRED TO]
DEO NARAIN CHOUDHARY VS. NARAIN CHOUDHARY [LAWS(SC)-2000-10-34] [REFERRED]
RAM SARUP KHETAN VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-1997-9-26] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. PRITHIPAL SINGH CO [LAWS(MPH)-1987-12-7] [REFERRED TO]
S MUTHIAH VS. TIRUNELVELI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL [LAWS(MAD)-1987-3-7] [REFERRED TO]
THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR VS. KUNDREMUKH IRON ORE COMPANY LTD. [LAWS(KER)-1990-10-65] [REFERRED TO]
UNITED BUILDERS VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(J&K)-1977-7-7] [REFERRED TO]
MANAGING DIRECTOR CENTRAL WARE HOUSING CORPORATION BHAVAN 4 1 SIRI INSTITUTION AREA SIRI FORT HAUZKHAS NEW DELHI 110016 VS. KOONINENI VENKATESWARA RAO [LAWS(APH)-1989-1-18] [REFERRED TO]
TAPAN KUMAR PAUL VS. KRISHNA KANTA PAUL [LAWS(CAL)-1979-1-8] [REFERRED TO]
SK GUPTA VS. AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2012-12-212] [REFERRED TO]
NILESH SURESH KENE VS. ASHOK DURGA PILLAY [LAWS(BOM)-2025-1-2] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. IVTH A C M M KANPUR NAGAR [LAWS(ALL)-2001-3-14] [REFERRED TO]
SURENDRA KUMAR TYAGI VS. VIRENDRA KUMAR TYAGI [LAWS(ALL)-1990-10-46] [REFERRED TO]
KRISHANA KUMARI VS. SHANTI DEVI [LAWS(DLH)-1965-7-4] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA & ANOTHER VS. M/S PADMA CONSTRUCTION [LAWS(CAL)-2002-8-73] [REFERRED TO]
FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA VS. GOPAL CHANDRA MUKHERJEE [LAWS(CAL)-2003-3-1] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS. VS. ESKAY ENGINEERING CONCERN [LAWS(CAL)-2012-9-169] [REFERRED TO]
BENARSI KRISHNA COMMITTEE VS. KARMYOGI SHELTERS PVT. LTD [LAWS(SC)-2012-9-44] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF BIHAR VS. C P SINGH [LAWS(PAT)-1983-2-15] [REFERRED TO]
GIRDHAR PRASAD VS. AMBIKA PRASAD THAKUR [LAWS(PAT)-1968-7-16] [REFERRED TO]
HARDIAL SINGH VS. PEPSU ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION PATIALA [LAWS(P&H)-2015-9-485] [REFERRED TO]
PEPSU ROAD TRANSPORT CORPN. AND ORS. VS. HARI SINGH [LAWS(P&H)-2015-4-253] [REFERRED TO]
CENTRAL COALFIELDS LTD. AND ORS. VS. SMT. USHA SHARMA [LAWS(JHAR)-2003-2-109] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. J M BUILDERS AND ENGINEERS [LAWS(HPH)-1999-3-7] [REFERRED TO]
SAINIK SCHOOLS SOCIETY VS. R.C. SHARMA [LAWS(HPH)-2014-6-156] [REFERRED TO]
INDERJEET MEHTA VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(GAU)-2011-7-32] [REFERRED TO]
ABDULLA KADAR HUSSEINBHAI LAKDAWALA VS. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER THANE [LAWS(BOM)-1986-11-7] [REFERRED TO]
GOVERNMENT OF A P VS. P KRISHNA PRASAD [LAWS(APH)-2003-3-161] [REFERRED TO]
SHIV LAL VS. FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA [LAWS(RAJ)-1997-1-87] [REFERRED TO]
PEPSU ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS. MANGAL SINGH [LAWS(SC)-2011-5-65] [REFERRED TO]
WESTERN COALFIELD LIMITED VS. B D SHARMA [LAWS(MPH)-2007-2-168] [REFERRED]
BHARAT COKING COAL LIMITED VS. C K AHUJA [LAWS(SC)-1995-2-121] [REFERRED TO]
UPPUGANDLA ANANTHA REDDY VS. UPPUGANDLA BHAGYAMMA [LAWS(APH)-2000-10-17] [REFERRED TO]
K A MAHBOOB BASHA VS. K A MOHAMED IBRAHIM [LAWS(MAD)-2007-6-330] [REFERRED TO]
RAJENDRA Y. SHAH VS. AMU SHARES AND SECURITIES LTD. [LAWS(BOM)-2019-1-22] [REFERRED TO]
C C SUBBARAYA SETTY VS. C V ANANTHANARAYANA SETTY [LAWS(KAR)-1995-8-42] [REFERRED TO]
M L MAHAJAN VS. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY [LAWS(DLH)-1992-4-60] [REFERRED GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ANOTHER VS. BACTCHALA BALAIAH,AIR 1985 ANDHRA PRADESH 52]
SANTHARAM ROY T.S. VS. TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD [LAWS(KER)-2022-3-79] [REFERRED TO]
ASSAM STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD VS. BUILDWORTH PVT LTD [LAWS(GAU)-2006-11-52] [REFERRED TO]
KARMYOGI SHELTERS PVT LTD VS. BENARSI KRISHNA COMMITTEE [LAWS(DLH)-2009-8-206] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. VISHAKARMA SHILPI [LAWS(DLH)-1975-1-11] [REFERRED]
U P AVAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD VS. KANAK [LAWS(ALL)-1998-5-36] [REFERRED TO]
SAVITRIBAI VS. KRISHNAKUMARI [LAWS(BOM)-2014-7-74] [REFERRED TO]
CENTRAL WAREHOUSING CORPN VS. B M PAL CHOWDHURY [LAWS(CAL)-1984-3-3] [REFERRED TO]
STATE VS. A MONDAL [LAWS(CAL)-1984-8-4] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. SEWAK RAM AND CO [LAWS(CAL)-1987-6-22] [REFERRED TO]
MEERA TAMRAKAR, W/O LATE RAJKUMAR TAMRAKAR VS. LAKHAN LAL, S/O HAR PRASAD [LAWS(CHH)-2016-5-33] [REFERRED]
THIRU K. PALANISWAMY VS. M. SHANMUGAM [LAWS(SC)-2023-2-54] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. ARADHANA TRADING COMPANY [LAWS(SC)-2002-4-160] [RELIED ON]
BENARSI KRISHNA COMMITTEE VS. KARMYOGI SHELTERS PVT LTD [LAWS(SC)-2012-9-73] [REFERRED TO]
PUNJAB TOURISM CORPORATION LTD. VS. PARKASH CHAND GOYAL [LAWS(P&H)-2000-7-146] [REFERRED TO]
FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA VS. E KUTTAPPAN [LAWS(SC)-1993-6-4] [RELIED ON]
JAGDISH SINGH VS. STATE OR BIHAR AND OTHERS [LAWS(PAT)-1986-3-22] [REFERRED TO]
HASANALLI ABDULALLI MALABARI VS. SHANTILAL BHAIDAS MARFATIA [LAWS(GJH)-1962-4-12] [REFERRED]
SHRI JYOTIRMOY PAUL & ANR. VS. STATE OF ASSAM & ORS. [LAWS(GAU)-2012-8-126] [REFERRED TO]
GOVT OF A P VS. Y V SUBBA RAO [LAWS(APH)-1992-11-36] [REFERRED TO]
RAJANNA M VS. F C I [LAWS(APH)-1996-9-64] [DISTINGUISHED]
SAMI ATEEQ AHMED VS. MOHAMMED RAFIQ KHAN AND OTHERS [LAWS(APH)-2016-9-24] [REFERRED TO]
GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH VS. D POCHAIAH [LAWS(APH)-2003-2-102] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. CIVIL JUDGE ALLAHABAD [LAWS(ALL)-1990-2-28] [REFERRED TO]
U.O.I. VS. DELHI SCHOOL TEACHERS ASSN [LAWS(DLH)-2009-3-134] [REFERRED TO]
WEE AAR CONSTRUCTIVE BUILDERS VS. SIMPLEX CONCRETE PILES INDIA LTD [LAWS(DLH)-2010-2-376] [REFERRED TO]
KARMYOGI SHELTERS PVT LTD VS. BENARSI KRISHNA COMMITTEE [LAWS(DLH)-2010-5-6] [REFERRED TO]
AGRA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS. EAST INDIA HOTELS LTD [LAWS(ALL)-1999-9-54] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
RAGHUBAR DAYAL -
(1.)THIS is an appeal on certificate under Art. 133(1)(c) of the Constitution, granted by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay.
(2.)A suit for partition was filed against, defendants 1 to 10 and 12, members of a joint family. Defendant No. 1 was father of the appellant, who was then a minor, defendant No. 12. Defendant No. 11 was an outsider, he being a partner in the partnership shop of the family. Parties other than defendant No. 11 referred the matters in difference to an arbitrator. The arbitrator filed the award in Court on 18/02/1948. On Fe 21/02/1948, the Civil Judge adjourned the matter 'for parties' say to the arbitrator's report', to 22/03/1948. On Ma 16/03/1948, an application was presented on behalf of defendant No. 1 praying that certain papers and documents be called for from the arbitrator. On 22/03/1948, an application was presented on behalf of defendant No. 1 pray-in for is days' time for going through the papers and documents which he had asked the arbitrator to send to the Court and to intimate his say regarding the arbitrator's award. The Court granted the request. Defendant No. 1 filed his say about the arbitrator's report on 2/04/1948. He withdrew his contentions on 11/03/1949. It is to be noted that neither the objections filed on April 2, nor the other applications, purported to have been filed on behalf of defendant No. 12.
On 17/02/1948, defendant No. 1 filed an application stating therein :
"An arbitrator is to be appointed in the matter of the suit and the arbitrator is to submit an award. For the aforesaid reasons it is impossible for me to put forth properly necessary contentions etc., in the said matter. Consequently, the minor will be put to a heavy loss. In these circumstances, I have no desire to act as a guardian of the minor. Therefore, my appointment as a guardian of the mirror may be cancelled and further steps tray be taken after appointing a proper guardian of the minor. His mother Dhondavvabai may be appointed, guardian of the minor. I have put forth a contention against the arbitrator's award. I may be granted time for that purpose."
His resignation from guardianship was accepted on 13/04/1948, and Dhondavvabai, the mother of the minor defendant No. 12, was appointed guardian on 16/06/1948.
On 5/09/1948, a summons purporting to be for settlement of issues, was served on her. On 7/09/1948, she applied for, and was granted, one month's time for submitting the written statement with regard to the claim and the award in the said matter. On 7/10/1948, she applied for, and was granted, another one month's time for the same purpose. On 9/11/1948, she filed a written statement on behalf of defendant No. 12, with regard to the suit and the award, questioning the validity of the award and praying that it be declared null and void and that the suit be heard after taking into consideration the interest of the minor.
(3.)ON 24/08/1949, the Civil Judge ordered that the award be filed, that a decree be drawn up in terms of the award and that the decree should further contain the terms as to the Bombay shop run in partnership with defendant No. 11 as was mentioned in the order. It was said in this order that none of the parties except defendant No. 1 put in any objections to the award, that defendant No. 1 filed his objections beyond the period of limitation and subsequently withdrew them and that the objections - filed by the guardian-ad-litem of defendant No. 1 2/11/1948, was also filed beyond the period of limitation.
Defendant No. 12 then went up in appeal to the High Court. The High Court dismissed the appeal holding that it was incompetent as the order of the Civil Judge did not amount to an order refusing to set aside an award, as there had been no objection before him for the setting aside of the award. It further held that the issue of a formal notice under sub-sec. (2) of S. 14 intimating the filing of the award was not necessary for the commencement of the period of limitation under Art. 158 of the Limitation Act and that objections coming under S. 33 of the Arbitration Act also amounted to objections for the setting aside of the award. It is this order of the High Court whose correctness is challenged in this appeal.
(2.)A suit for partition was filed against, defendants 1 to 10 and 12, members of a joint family. Defendant No. 1 was father of the appellant, who was then a minor, defendant No. 12. Defendant No. 11 was an outsider, he being a partner in the partnership shop of the family. Parties other than defendant No. 11 referred the matters in difference to an arbitrator. The arbitrator filed the award in Court on 18/02/1948. On Fe 21/02/1948, the Civil Judge adjourned the matter 'for parties' say to the arbitrator's report', to 22/03/1948. On Ma 16/03/1948, an application was presented on behalf of defendant No. 1 praying that certain papers and documents be called for from the arbitrator. On 22/03/1948, an application was presented on behalf of defendant No. 1 pray-in for is days' time for going through the papers and documents which he had asked the arbitrator to send to the Court and to intimate his say regarding the arbitrator's award. The Court granted the request. Defendant No. 1 filed his say about the arbitrator's report on 2/04/1948. He withdrew his contentions on 11/03/1949. It is to be noted that neither the objections filed on April 2, nor the other applications, purported to have been filed on behalf of defendant No. 12.
On 17/02/1948, defendant No. 1 filed an application stating therein :
"An arbitrator is to be appointed in the matter of the suit and the arbitrator is to submit an award. For the aforesaid reasons it is impossible for me to put forth properly necessary contentions etc., in the said matter. Consequently, the minor will be put to a heavy loss. In these circumstances, I have no desire to act as a guardian of the minor. Therefore, my appointment as a guardian of the mirror may be cancelled and further steps tray be taken after appointing a proper guardian of the minor. His mother Dhondavvabai may be appointed, guardian of the minor. I have put forth a contention against the arbitrator's award. I may be granted time for that purpose."
His resignation from guardianship was accepted on 13/04/1948, and Dhondavvabai, the mother of the minor defendant No. 12, was appointed guardian on 16/06/1948.
On 5/09/1948, a summons purporting to be for settlement of issues, was served on her. On 7/09/1948, she applied for, and was granted, one month's time for submitting the written statement with regard to the claim and the award in the said matter. On 7/10/1948, she applied for, and was granted, another one month's time for the same purpose. On 9/11/1948, she filed a written statement on behalf of defendant No. 12, with regard to the suit and the award, questioning the validity of the award and praying that it be declared null and void and that the suit be heard after taking into consideration the interest of the minor.
(3.)ON 24/08/1949, the Civil Judge ordered that the award be filed, that a decree be drawn up in terms of the award and that the decree should further contain the terms as to the Bombay shop run in partnership with defendant No. 11 as was mentioned in the order. It was said in this order that none of the parties except defendant No. 1 put in any objections to the award, that defendant No. 1 filed his objections beyond the period of limitation and subsequently withdrew them and that the objections - filed by the guardian-ad-litem of defendant No. 1 2/11/1948, was also filed beyond the period of limitation.
Defendant No. 12 then went up in appeal to the High Court. The High Court dismissed the appeal holding that it was incompetent as the order of the Civil Judge did not amount to an order refusing to set aside an award, as there had been no objection before him for the setting aside of the award. It further held that the issue of a formal notice under sub-sec. (2) of S. 14 intimating the filing of the award was not necessary for the commencement of the period of limitation under Art. 158 of the Limitation Act and that objections coming under S. 33 of the Arbitration Act also amounted to objections for the setting aside of the award. It is this order of the High Court whose correctness is challenged in this appeal.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.