BALWANT SINGH (D) THR. LR. versus DUNGAR SINGH (D) THR. LRS.

BALWANT SINGH (D) THR. LR. versus DUNGAR SINGH (D) THR. LRS.

Because the parties had mutually consented to the appointment of the three arbitrators, submitted their claims to them, the arbitrators (though close relatives) were not charged with any misconduct, and the award was unanimous and based on materials and deliberation, the High Court correctly set aside the District Judge's order and made the award rule of the court; thereafter the parties' negotiated settlement justified modification of the award and issuance of decree in terms of the modified award.

Parties
Appellant: Balwant Singh (D) thr. LRs.; Respondent: Dungar Singh (D) thr. LRs.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
12 February 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal No. 7850 of 2009 / Appeal From High Court of Rajasthan Judgment Dated 01.06.2006
Outcome
Appeal disposed of; High Court judgment allowing respondents' appeal and making the arbitral award rule of the court is upheld; award modified by consent of the parties and decree to be drawn in terms of modified award.
Legal Topics
Validity of Arbitral Award, Appointment of Arbitrators, Making Award Rule of Court Under Section 39(1)(6), Modification of Award by Consent
Arbitration Civil Procedure Property Law Family Property/partition Validity of Arbitral Award Appointment of Arbitrators Making Award Rule of Court Under Section 39(1)(6) Modification of Award by Consent

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Balwant Singh (D) thr. LRs.

Appellant

Dungar Singh (D) thr. LRs.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal No. 7850 of 2009 / Appeal From High Court of Rajasthan Judgment Dated 01.06.2006

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitral award should be made rule of the court under Section 39(1)(6) of the Arbitration Act, 1940
  2. 2 Whether appointment of arbitrators who are close relatives and the manner/timing of signature/stamping vitiates the award
  3. 3 Whether absence of alleged misconduct and parties' consent justify enforcement of the award

Ratio Decidendi

Because the parties had mutually consented to the appointment of the three arbitrators, submitted their claims to them, the arbitrators (though close relatives) were not charged with any misconduct, and the award was unanimous and based on materials and deliberation, the High Court correctly set aside the District Judge's order and made the award rule of the court; thereafter the parties' negotiated settlement justified modification of the award and issuance of decree in terms of the modified award.

Court Disposition

Appeal disposed of; High Court judgment allowing respondents' appeal and making the arbitral award rule of the court is upheld; award modified by consent of the parties and decree to be drawn in terms of modified award.

Orders

  • Appeal disposed of.
  • High Court judgment dated 01.06.2006 is upheld to the extent the award is made rule of the court.