ABDUL KADIR SHAMSUDDIN BUBERE versus MADHAV PRABHAKAR OAK

ABDUL KADIR SHAMSUDDIN BUBERE versus MADHAV PRABHAKAR OAK

Absence of all persons interested in the subject matter from the application under s. 20 of the Arbitration Act does not bar arbitration, provided their shares are undisputed and not the subject of the arbitration. Only serious allegations of fraud requiring open court trial justify withholding reference to arbitration; ordinary disputes regarding accounts or suspicions about their correctness do not suffice.

Parties
Appellant: Abdul Kadir Shamsuddin Bubere; Respondent: Madhav Prabhakar Oak; Respondent: Anant Yeshwant Rane
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
20 September 1961
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal Via Certificate From Bombay High Court Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Arbitration Agreement, Reference to Arbitration, Serious Allegations of Fraud, Necessary Parties in Arbitration, Accounts, Receiver Appointment
Arbitration Arbitration Agreement Reference to Arbitration Serious Allegations of Fraud Necessary Parties in Arbitration Accounts Receiver Appointment

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Abdul Kadir Shamsuddin Bubere

Appellant

Madhav Prabhakar Oak

Respondent

Anant Yeshwant Rane

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal Via Certificate From Bombay High Court Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether arbitration can be compelled where all persons interested in the property are not parties to the arbitration agreement/application
  2. 2 Whether allegations of fraud are sufficient to prevent reference to arbitration under Indian law

Ratio Decidendi

Absence of all persons interested in the subject matter from the application under s. 20 of the Arbitration Act does not bar arbitration, provided their shares are undisputed and not the subject of the arbitration. Only serious allegations of fraud requiring open court trial justify withholding reference to arbitration; ordinary disputes regarding accounts or suspicions about their correctness do not suffice.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Arbitration agreement to be filed in court, and arbitration to proceed; application under s. 20 of the Arbitration Act allowed.