Just a moment...

Top
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By: ?
Even if Sort by Date is selected, exact match will be shown on the top.
RelevanceDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        Note

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        Agents and Counsel's Authority to Refer Disputes to Arbitration

        Jiwibai W/O. Karsondas Bhatia Versus Ramkuwar Shriniwas Murarka Agarwala

        Jiwibai W/O. Karsondas Bhatia Versus Ramkuwar Shriniwas Murarka Agarwala - TMI Issues Involved:
        1. Powers of an agent to refer a dispute to arbitration without express authority.
        2. Powers of counsel to refer a dispute to arbitration without express authority.

        Detailed Analysis:

        1. Powers of an Agent to Refer a Dispute to Arbitration Without Express Authority:

        The primary issue concerns whether an agent, without express authority, can refer a dispute pending in a court to arbitration. The appellant sued for possession and other reliefs, and during the trial, an application was made to refer the matter to arbitration. The application was signed by agents and counsel on behalf of both parties, but the plaintiff challenged the authority of his agent and counsel to make such a reference.

        The plaintiff's agent, Mohanlal, held a special power of attorney, and the plaintiff's counsel had a vakalatnama. Neither document explicitly conferred authority to refer the dispute to arbitration. The argument was whether the power to "compromise" included the power to refer to arbitration. The court noted that the term "compromise" in English courts could include arbitration, but in the vernacular, it might not extend beyond its literal meaning of "give and take."

        The court concluded that the power of attorney, which included the authority to "compromise" and to do whatever was necessary in the conduct of the suit, did include the power to refer to arbitration. The court emphasized that the terms of the power of attorney must be read in conjunction with the rest of the order and the facts of the case. The court cited several precedents indicating that a power of attorney should be construed to include all incidental powers necessary for carrying out its object effectively.

        2. Powers of Counsel to Refer a Dispute to Arbitration Without Express Authority:

        The second issue was whether counsel in India (Advocates including Barristers) have implied powers to compromise a pending suit or refer it to arbitration without express authority or consent of the client. The court answered affirmatively, stating that counsel have inherent powers to compromise a suit or refer it to arbitration unless expressly countermanded by the client.

        The court referred to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council's decision in Sourendranath v. Tarubala Dasi, which held that the power to compromise a suit is inherent in the position of an Advocate in India. This authority is implied in the appointment of counsel to conduct the suit on behalf of the client. The court noted that this implied authority is essential for the effective conduct of a suit, as counsel must make decisions minute by minute in the best interests of the client.

        The court also discussed the impracticality of requiring a power of attorney to envisage every possible contingency and act necessary for the conduct of a suit. It emphasized that the engagement of counsel is a special kind of contract, and the terms of such a contract must be construed with reference to the normal duties of counsel. The court cited Section 9 of the Indian Contract Act, which provides for implied terms in a contract based on the usual understanding of persons entering into similar transactions.

        The court concluded that the authority to compromise includes the authority to refer to arbitration, as arbitration is a recognized method of settling disputes. The court emphasized that counsel's inherent powers include the power to refer to arbitration unless expressly countermanded by the client. The court also noted that Order 3, Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure requires a written authority of appointment for counsel to "act," but once appointed, counsel have the inherent power to compromise or refer to arbitration.

        Conclusion:

        The court held that both agents and counsel have the authority to refer a dispute to arbitration without express authority from the principal or client, provided such authority is not expressly countermanded. The authority to "compromise" includes the power to refer to arbitration, and counsel have inherent powers to act in the best interests of their clients, including compromising and referring disputes to arbitration.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found