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>Legal Precedent: Setting Aside Award Not Res Judicata for Subsequent Claims</h1> <h3>Dalpat Singh Versus The Registrar, Co-Operative Societies Punjab Jullundur and Others</h3> The Court dismissed the petition challenging a second award obtained by a Co-operative Society against a member for loan repayment. The Court held that ... - Issues:1. Validity of restraining order against the respondent Registrar, Co-operative Societies.2. Res judicata principle application on the second award.3. Time-barred claim for recovery of the amount.Analysis:Issue 1: The petitioner sought a writ to restrain the respondent Registrar, Co-operative Societies, from enforcing an award made against him. The petitioner, a member of a Co-operative Thrift and Credit Society, disputed a demand for loan repayment. The arbitrator's ex-parte award was set aside by the Subordinate Judge, Nawanshahr, in 1959, due to procedural irregularities. The Society then obtained a second award from the Assistant Registrar in 1960, which the petitioner challenged through a revision petition under the Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, 1954.Issue 2: The petitioner argued that the second award was barred under the principle of res judicata, citing a Division Bench authority that emphasized the finality of a valid award. However, the Court observed that the first award was set aside not on the merits but due to procedural deficiencies. As there was no final decision on the dispute's substance, the bar of res judicata did not apply to the execution of the second award.Issue 3: The petitioner contended that the claim for recovery was time-barred. The Court clarified that the expiration of the limitation period does not extinguish the right to recover. Referring to the Arbitration Act and a Bombay High Court decision, it held that limitations under the Indian Limitation Act do not apply to arbitrations. Therefore, even if the claim was time-barred in a court of law, the arbitrator could still issue an award in favor of the party.In conclusion, the Court dismissed the petition, ruling that there was no merit in the petitioner's arguments. The petition was rejected, and costs were awarded against the petitioner.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
