Source: https://www.lawweb.in/2017/06/whether-it-is-mandatory-to-register.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 12:13:13+00:00

Document:
Law Web: Whether it is mandatory to register arbitration award if property more than Rs 100/ is transferred by said award?
Whether it is mandatory to register arbitration award if property more than Rs 100/ is transferred by said award?
not dealing with immovable property.
34. In another two decisions, the first one Siromani v.
happens to be memorandum of partition.
heard analogously and are being decided by a common judgment. .
matter of these two appeals.
account of non substitution of the party the proceeding was to abate.
account of illegality committed since inception of the proceeding.
award in question became nonest in the eye of law.
26.12.1976 as well as 13.05.1977 to be an ancillary one.
by the adversary Dr. Aditya Narayan Singh, who had no role to play.
therefore the award has lost its legal identity and is fit to be rejected.
AIR 1989 SC 1923, AIR 1953 SC 21, AIR 1995 SC 1927, AIR 2007Patna High Court MA No.592 of 2011 dt.09-02-2016 7.
SC 2062, (2004) 5 SCC 304, AIR 1968 SC 1299.
learned lower court rightly acted upon after brushing aside the same.
case, and therefore, is misemployed .
AIR 1961 SC 1077, (1976) 3 SCC 113, AIR 1952 SC 145.
of the old Act that means to say the Arbitration Act, 1940.
brevity) has to be seen.
clerical mistake or error arising from any accidental slip or omission.
and proved before them, to be filed in court.
mistake or an error arising from an accidental slip or omission.
setting aside the award. Section 39 deals with event of appeal.
within such extent or within such extent time as the court may allow.
what kind of repercussion it has.
22. In M/s Chowdhury and Gulzar Singh, New Delhi-1, vs.
to the filing of the award by the arbitration.
arbitrators was not barred by any period of limitation.
prescribed for the arbitrator to file the award in court.
otherwise the award after expiry may become invalid.
“In this connection reference may be made to H.K.
24. In Jatinder Nath v. Chopra Land Developers (P) Ltd.
choice as an arbitrator. This discussion is important.
the scope of Section 8 read with Section 19 of the Act.
no power to make an award after four months.
1992. On 5-9-1992 the appellant appeared before him.
making award dated 29-3-1994 the rule of the court.
1994 titled Chopra Land Developers (P) Ltd. v.
time as the court may allow.
to enlarge time for making the award.
arbitrator after the expiry of the prescribed period.
our opinion was justified in taking the view that it did.
outset to read the relevant provisions of the Act.
Allahabad High Court, in Sardar Mal Hardat Rai v.
word “act” in the second alternative.
construction should be placed upon the provision.
abandoned reference is implicit in the words “to act”.
provisions do not support this contention.
terms of Section 14(2) of the Act.
should have rejected the award.
second arbitration agreement, dated October 10, 1954.
make good the amount which came to Rs 22,009-7-9.
given by the Patna Full Bench in Sheonarain Lal v.
11. Again in Kashtinathsa Yamosa Kabadi v.
a rule of the Court.
Section 49 of the Registration Act.
are not called upon to decide this point.
award in dispute required registration.
mentions the documents which must be registered.
question was one which did not require registration.
“their disputes regarding property against each other”.
property by the aforesaid clause in the award.
be annexed by custom to a grant of the kind.
being a disabling section, must be construed strictly.
would be no bar to its being admitted in evidence.
value of Rs 100 or upwards in immovable property.
rid of the disability created by Section 49 of the Act.
registration the award will have no teeth to bite.
the end of arbitrator while proceeding with the event of arbitration.
arbitration proceeding placed before the court.
visualizes happens to be mere irregularity and not illegality.
the decision in Champsey Bhara & Company v.
Jivraj Balloo Spinning and Weaving Company Ltd.
by the arbitrator resulting in miscarriage of justice.
opined that there was a legal misconduct.
adjudication. In K.V. George v.
given to both the parties.
documents and materials on record.
made to Rajasthan State Mines and Minerals Ltd.
tantamount to mala fide action.
facts and circumstances of the case, parties will bear their own cost.

References: v.

 v. 
 v.

 v.

 v.

 v.

 v.

 v.