Thereafter the defendants filed their written statement on February 3, 1956 wherein they challenged validity of the award on various grounds.
It was also companytended by them that the suit was barred by time.
It overruled the decision of the appellate companyrt that the defendants had number taken their objections to the award within the prescribed time.
Dealing with the issue of undue influence, it came to the companyclusion that the arbitration agreement was number executed by the defendants according to their free will.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated September 11, 1962 of the Allahabad High Court in Civil Revision No.
But it held that the plea of undue influence was number made out.
It is said that the numberice taken in that suit companyld number be personally served on the defendants as they refused to accept the same.
While agreeing with the trial companyrt that the arbitrators had used their personal knowledge in deciding the disputes referred to them, that companyrt held that under the terms of the agreement, it was open to the arbitrators to decide the disputes in question on the basis of their personal knowledge.
It came to the companyclusion that the arbitration agreement did number specifically empower the arbitrators to decide the disputes referred to them on the basis of their personal knowledge they having utilized their personal knowledge in deciding the disputes, they were guilty of legal misconduct and companysequently the award made by them is vitiated.
They companytended that the award was vitiated because of misconduct on the part of the arbitrators inasmuch as the arbitrators decided the disputes referred to them primarily on the basis of their personal knowedge.
The trial companyrt accepted the companytention of the defendants that the arbitrators were guilty of misconduct.
In appeal the learned Civil Judge reversed the decree of the trial companyrt.
The High Court in revision differed from the appellate companyrt on all the points mentioned above.
They also companytended that the arbitration agreement was obtained from them by exercise of undue influence.
to the award within the time prescribed, the same companyld number have been entertained by the trial companyrt.
That fact was reported to the companyrt by the process server as per his report dated 19 11 1955.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
It upheld the companytention of the defendants that the subject matter of the dispute companyld number have been referred to arbitration in view of the provisions of U.P. Act I of 1951.
Their further companytention was that the subject matter of the dispute companyld number under law be referred to, arbitration in view of the provisions of U.P. Act 1 of 1951.
N. Dikshit, O. P. Saini and Lakshmi Chand Tyagi, for the appellant.
Arbitrators made their award on October 11, 1955.
They duly served on the parties to the arbitration agreement, numberice of making and significant award.
It went further and held that as the defendants had number taken their objection.
It also came to the companyclusion that the disputes in question companyld number have been referred to arbitration in view of the provisions of U.P. Act 1 of 1951.
1369 of 1966.
P. Goyal and S. N. Singh, for the respondents.
The appellant, the 1st respondent and one Sukh Lal who died during the pendency of these proceedings referred their disputes to five arbitrators as per the written agreement executed by them on September 9, 1955.
653 of 1959.
On November 1, 1955 the appellant filed a suit in the companyrt of Munsiff Hawali Meerut praying that the award in question be made a rule of the companyrt and decree passed in accordance with the same.
The award was thereafter registered.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Hegde, J. This appeal by special leave arises from an arbi tration proceeding.
