9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (10) TMI 682X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt to refer the dispute to the Arbital Tribunal for deciding the partition of the Joint Hindu properties. Although the agreement postulated the Arbitral Tribunal of five persons, it is not disputed that there were only four persons who comprised the Tribunal. The Tribunal gave an Award on 31st May, 1998, which was subsequently corrected on 10th June, 1998 by a clarification order. The respondents ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act; (5) That the Arbitrators have not acted impartially and played fraud on the parties; and (6) That the Award is inadmissible and unenforceable in law for want of proper stamp duty and registration. The Principal Sub-Judge, Hyderabad, by an order dated 4th August, 2000 rejected the said petitions. Aggrieved, the respondents filed the appeals before the High Court of Judicature at Andh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the Award did create rights in favour of the parties and as such it required registration and the view taken by the High Court is in conformity with law. After we heard the matter, we are of the view that in the present case this issue was not required to be gone into at the stage of proceedings under Section 34 of the Act. In fact, this issue was pre-mature at that stage. Section 34 of the A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... egistration is within the ambit of Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure and not covered by Section 34 of the Act. For the aforesaid reasons, the judgment under challenge deserves to be set aside. Consequently, it is set aside. The appeals are, accordingly, allowed. Since the High Court has not dealt with other objections raised under Section 34 of the Act, we remit the matter to the Hig ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
