Supreme Court of India
MADHO S/O SHRIHARI DESHPANDE versus MADHAO S/O TRIMBAK DHARMADHIKAREE
- Decided
- 22 April 1988
- Judges listed
- SABYASACHI MUKHERJI
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
Citations
- Official
- [1988] 3 S.C.R. 685 · 1988 INSC 117
- Also cited as
- AIR 1988 SC 1347
Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.
Cited by
We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.
Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.
The Court's text
Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.
SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J. In this case notice had been issued indicating that the matter would be disposed of at the notice stage. The respondents have not appeared.
p. 686, margin D
Special leave granted and the appeal is disposed as hereunder.
p. 686, margin D
The only question involved in this appeal is whether the High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench, was right in rejecting the revision application summarily when the learned Civil Judge had held that the award was wrongly presented in his Court and he had no jurisdiction to go into the question of validity of the award. The facts are that there was a reference to an arbitrator. The award was filed in the Civil Court at Nagpur and objection was filed against the said award. The short question upon which the learned District Judge dismissed the applica· ti on was that Nagpur was not the Court which had jurisdiction to entertain application. He held in his order, interalia, as follows:
p. 686, margin E
"Most of the parties to the agreement of reference are the residents of Warora in the District of Chandrapur. On the careful scrutiny of agreement of reference, the place of execution of the said agreement seems to have been omitted. I am quite unable to understand as to how the glaring mistake in respect of omission of place of execution of the agreement has been committed. It seems that the place of execution of the agreement is deliberately omitted with intend to file the award in the Civil Court at Nagpur as the arbitrator is the resident of Nagpur. For his convenience to file the award in the Civil Court at Nagpur, the place of execution of the agreement seems to have been omitted. Moreover, it appears that the agreement for reference appears to have been prepared and drafted at Nagpur as stamp paper was purchased :it Nagpur. It does not mean that the parties executed agreement for reference at Nagpur as the most of the parties are the residents of Warora and most of the property except the house on plot No. 94, at Shiwaji Nagar, Nagpur, is situated at Warora in Chandrapur District. An adverse inference can be drawn that the agreement of reference was executed at Warora in Chandrapur District which comes within the local jurisdic-
pp. 686–687, margin F
tion of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Chandrapur."
p. 687, margin C
The learned Civil Judge held that the award passed by the arbitrator ought to have been filed in the court of Civil Judge, Senior . Division, Chandrapur. The learned Civil Judge held that only a bit of property situated at Nagpur and the residence of arbitrator at Nagpur did not give local jurisdiction to the Court at Nagpur. He accordingly dismissed the application with the order that award be returned for presentation to the proper Court having legal jurisdiction. We are of the opinion that the learned Civil Judge was in error in view of the provisions of Sections 17 and 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, in holding as he did.
p. 687, margin D
In view of the facts mentioned undoubtedly part of the dispute which was the subject matter of dispute was within the jurisdiction of the Nagpur Court. This view is further corroborated by the Section 2(c) of the Arbitration Act, 1940. The Court at Nagpur had undoubtedly part of the jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
p. 687, margin E
The High Court had summarily rejected the revision application against the said order of the learned Civil Judge. The High Court, in our opinion, also was in error in not entertaining the application and in not setting aside the order of the learned Civil Judge. In the premises and in the facts of this, we are of the opinion, that the High Court and the learned Civil Judge were in error. Their orders are therefore set aside.
p. 687, margin G
The appeal is allowed. Let the learned Civil Judge proceed with the objection to the award filed in his Court at Nagpur. The said objection may be disposed of as quickly as possible. There will be no order as to costs. G.N. Appeal allowed.
p. 688, margin A
1;
p. 688, margin B