PRATAP SINGH versus PREETAM SINGH & ANR.

PRATAP SINGH versus PREETAM SINGH & ANR.

The Civil Court at Mandsaur was competent to appoint a receiver of the property until the question about the jurisdiction of the Delhi Court under Section 31(4) of the Arbitration Act, 1940, was finally determined. This is because, so long as the jurisdiction of the Delhi Court to entertain the application for extension of time was in dispute, the court dealing with the suit could make orders necessary to preserve the property which is the subject-matter of the suit.

Parties
Appellant: Pratap Singh; Respondent: Preetam Singh; Arbitrator: Diwan Singh; Respondent: Pritipal Singh
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
19 August 1969
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From the Judgment and Order Dated 1st November, 1968 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Indore Bench in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 111 of 1967
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Arbitrator's Powers, Jurisdiction Under Arbitration Act, Interim Relief, Receiver Appointment, Section 31(4) Arbitration Act, Section 34 Arbitration Act
Arbitration Civil Procedure Arbitrator's Powers Jurisdiction Under Arbitration Act Interim Relief Receiver Appointment Section 31(4) Arbitration Act Section 34 Arbitration Act

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pratap Singh

Appellant

Preetam Singh

Respondent

Diwan Singh

Arbitrator

Pritipal Singh

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From the Judgment and Order Dated 1st November, 1968 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Indore Bench in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 111 of 1967

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Civil Court in Madhya Pradesh was competent to appoint a receiver of the partnership property while the jurisdiction of the Subordinate Judge, Delhi was in question under s. 31(4) of the Arbitration Act, 1940.
  2. 2 Whether the appointment of a receiver is excluded by the Arbitration Act when proceedings are pending before an arbitrator or another court.

Ratio Decidendi

The Civil Court at Mandsaur was competent to appoint a receiver of the property until the question about the jurisdiction of the Delhi Court under Section 31(4) of the Arbitration Act, 1940, was finally determined. This is because, so long as the jurisdiction of the Delhi Court to entertain the application for extension of time was in dispute, the court dealing with the suit could make orders necessary to preserve the property which is the subject-matter of the suit.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.