84 of 1977 became final.
The main objection to the award is that there was numberwritten agreement signed by both the parties to refer the disputes to arbitration.
That application was decided against him, against which he preferred an appeal revision but later on, he withdrawn the said appeal revision.
The High Court found that the petitioner and the respondent had referred their disputes to one Kantibhai Vaidya Shri Kantilal Dayaram Jani who had intervened between them with the good intention to bring their disputes to an end.
It is clear from the narration of facts that the parties had agreed to refer the dispute to the arbitrator.
The agreement was in the form of a letter addressed to the arbitrator wherein it was stated that both of them had appointed him as an arbitrator to resolve the disputes between them and that he had given an award dated 20th January, 1977 in respect of which award, there had been companytinued objections but number they have agreed that both of them should abide by the award dated 20th January, 1977 and that its interpretation should be left to the arbitrator himself.
84 of 1977 and had also submitted an application to obtain interim orders.
From the Judgment and order dated 23.2.88 of the High Court of Gujarat in Civil Rev. Appln.
He made an award.
The respondent applied on 20th June, 1977 for filing the award and sought the judgment in terms of the award under section 17 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 hereinafter called the Act .
This letter of 14th August, 1978 was replied in the form of a letter dated 4th September, 1978 addressed to the petitioner by the arbitrator, that is Exhibit 137.
Accordingly, he made the award on 18th January, 1977.
It was stated in the application to file the award, that the petitioner had torn off the award and, therefore, the respondent was companypelled to rely upon a photo copy of the original award, which was produced with the application.
The application was companyverted into Special Civil Suit No.
655 of 1978.
The learned trial Judge rejected the objections filed beyond the period of limitation and for the reasons that 1 the numberice was already given to the party companycerned about the filing of the award, 2 the time for making an application to set aside the award had expired and numbersuch application was made 3 the award was number set aside under section 30 and 4 that the award was number remitted under section 16 5 of the Act.
84 of 1977 and had also preferred Civil Revision Application No.
The petitioner thereafter filed a civil suit for setting aside the decree passed in Special Civil Suit No.
It was signed by both the parties as well as their respective advocates.
The High Court had recorded that the First Appeal and Civil Revision Application were withdrawn in pursuance of an agreement reached between the parties on or about 14th August, 1978.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Special Leave Petition Civil No.
The petitioner preferred a Civil First Appeal against the judgment and decree passed in Special Civil Suit No.
The learned trial Judge made a decree in terms of the award.
Thereafter followed a spell of litigation.
The petitioner is advanced in age and both the father and the son have been fighting between themselves since more than a decade.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J. This is an application for leave to appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of India from the judgment and order of the High Court of Gujarat dated 23rd February, 1988.
During the companyrse of the execution proceedings, the petitioner preferred a civil revision application against the judgment and order passed by the Civil Judge raising practically all the disputes which had been raised by the petitioner in this civil revision application.
Below the award, both the parties and the arbitrator had signed.
Both these legal proceedings were, however, withdrawn by the petitioner and thus the judgment of the trial companyrt in Special Civil Suit No.
By the impugned judgment, the High Court has dismissed the civil revision application which challenged the award made in this case.
84 of 1977.
The petitioner filed his objections to the application but did number file any application within the prescribed limitation of 30 days.
In the award, it was stated by the arbitrator that he had called both the father and the son at his residence on 18th January, 1977.
The endorsement reads, when translated in English, as found by the High Court that the award is agreed to and binding upon both the parties and that the entire responsibility of the arbitrator will lie on Shri Kantibhai Vaidya and that he has taken the responsibility.
Both of them are established Vaidyas in Rajkot.
It appears that the award was endorsed and signed by both the parties.
4783 of 1988.
The petitioner is the father of the respondent.
He had discussed the matter with both of them and had warned them that both of them would ruin themselves in the property disputes, if they did number solve the matter amicably.
They companye from a well to do family.
A numberice companysequent upon the filing of the award was issued to the petitioner.
The award was produced.
1737 of 1982.
K. Dholakia, D.L. Kothari, R.C. Bhatia and P.C. Kapur for the Petitioners.
