Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether, under Section 21 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, a dispute arising during execution proceedings could be referred to arbitration and the resulting reference and proceedings be treated as valid and binding.
Analysis: The expression "suit" in Section 21 was construed in its ordinary procedural sense as an original civil proceeding instituted by plaint, and not in the wider sense so as to include execution proceedings. The language of the provision was held to be clear and unambiguous, and the Court declined to enlarge its scope by judicial interpretation. The reasoning applied the settled rule that where statutory words are plain, effect must be given to them as written, and a perceived omission cannot be supplied as a casus omissus. Authorities supporting the exclusion of execution proceedings from the ambit of Section 21 were preferred over contrary views.
Conclusion: A reference to arbitration made during execution proceedings was without jurisdiction and the award or proceedings founded on it were not binding on the judgment-debtor. The appeal was therefore allowed and the impugned order was set aside.
Ratio Decidendi: Section 21 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 permits reference to arbitration only in a pending suit and does not extend to execution proceedings; clear statutory language cannot be expanded by interpretation to cover omitted proceedings.