TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court Overturns High Court, Restores District Judge's Decision. Parties to Bear Own Costs.</h1> <h3>Bijendra Nath Srivastava (Dead) through LRs. Versus Mayank Srivastava and others</h3> The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's judgment and restoring the judgment of the Additional District & Sessions Judge, ... - Issues Involved:1. Whether the award made by the arbitrator dividing the movable and immovable properties of the joint family is liable to be set aside.2. Whether the arbitrator committed judicial misconduct.3. Whether the award suffers from mistakes apparent on its face.4. Whether the amendment of the objection petition was correctly allowed.Summary:1. Validity of the Arbitrator's Award:The Supreme Court examined whether the award dividing the joint family properties should be set aside. The award was initially accepted by the civil court but was later set aside by the High Court due to perceived mistakes and judicial misconduct by the arbitrator. The arbitrator divided the properties into six shares, and the award was registered and filed in court. Objections were raised by some parties, claiming misconduct and excess of powers by the arbitrator.2. Allegations of Judicial Misconduct:The High Court found that the arbitrator incorrectly recorded the presence of a party in the proceedings and returned documents to a party after making the award. The Supreme Court disagreed, noting that the allegations were raised only after the arbitrator's death and lacked corroborating evidence. The Supreme Court emphasized that the arbitrator's record should not be disbelieved without substantial evidence.3. Mistakes Apparent on the Face of the Award:The High Court identified several mistakes in the award, including incorrect valuation of properties and unequal division of shares. The Supreme Court held that the award was a non-speaking award and could not be challenged on the ground of errors apparent on its face. The Court found that the arbitrator had considered all claims and made a lump-sum award for each party, which was permissible.4. Amendment of the Objection Petition:The Supreme Court addressed the issue of whether the amendment to the objection petition was correctly allowed. The trial court had allowed the amendment, but the Supreme Court found that the amendment introduced new allegations of misconduct not originally pleaded. The Court held that the amendments were wrongly allowed and set them aside.Conclusion:The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's judgment and restoring the judgment of the Additional District & Sessions Judge, which made the award the rule of the court. The parties were left to bear their own costs.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
