Citation Codes Equivalent Citations citation codes Case Number First Appeal No. 273 of 1925 Attorney(S) Nilkant Atmaram, for the appellant.—It is submitted that the question propounded should be answered in the negative. A.G Desai, for the respondents:—Under Order XXIII, Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code, the details regarding the manner in which an agreement, compromise or satisfaction is to be recorded are not stated. An adjustment or compromise may be made in one of three ways: (1) it may be made directly by the parties between themselves; (2) it may be arrived at through the intervention of a third party; (3) there is a class of cases in which differences may be adjusted by casting of lots, e.g, in partition matters. The ruling in Wood v. Griffith(8) sufficiently supports the contention that “an award supposes an agreement between the parties, and contains no more than the terms of that agreement ascertained by a third person”. Section 30 of the Specific Relief Act shows that an award could be specifically enforced as an agreement between the parties. Until the award ripens into a decree it is none the less an agreement. The provisions of Order XXIII, Rule 3, of the Civil Procedure Code, come into operation when there is a lawful agreement, compromise or satisfaction between the parties to a suit. When both parties to an award accept it, it may fall within Rule 3; but where an award is not accepted by one of the parties, it falls under neither of the categories mentioned in the rule. An award is not a lawful agreement. The agreement to refer does not operate as an adjustment, though an award may be. A disputed award is neither an agreement nor a compromise. Compromise means what is consented to by both parties. An award would become compromise if both parties consent to its terms. Section 89 of the Code makes it clear that all references to arbitration are governed by its Second Schedule, except those provided for (1) by the Indian Arbitration Act and (2) by any other law for the time being in force. The expression “any other law for the time being in force” does not mean Order XXIII, Rule 3. It means law extraneous to the Civil Procedure Code. The Indian Arbitration Act does not contemplate reference to arbitration out of Court by parties to a suit. There is no suit pending. The parties can of themselves refer their disputes to arbitration. Section 19 is put in to avoid a dual exercise of jurisdiction, and empowers the court to stay a suit filed subsequently by one of the parties. The Act applies only to Presidency towns: see Rampratap Chamria v. Durgaprasad Chamria. [Marten, C.J referred to Gopalji v. Morarji.] Schedule II to the Civil Procedure Code is divisible into three parts. Some of the provisions of the first part are common to parts 2 and 3. Part 1, containing Rules 1 to 16, deals with reference to arbitration where the matter is pending before the Court in a suit. The point important to note is that the reference is an order of the Court; otherwise the proceedings before the arbitrator and the award are nullities. Rule 3(2) read with Rule 15(2) shows that there must be only one jurisdiction operating at the time. The arbitrators and the Court cannot both operate simultaneously. The second part embraces Rules 17 to 19. Here there is no pending suit. The parties agree in writing to refer their disputes to arbitration and apply to the Court to make the reference an order of the Court. Both in parts 1 and 2, the proceedings before arbitration are under the watch and control of the Court from first to last. All conflict of jurisdiction is avoided by Rule 18 which enables the Court to stay a suit filed by one of the parties subsequent to the reference to arbitration. Part 3, which embodies rules 20 to 23, refers to cases where parties refer their disputes to arbitration out of Court and an award has been made without the intervention of the Court. There is no suit pending. The award is brought into Court, for a decree to be passed in terms thereof. The dissenting judgment of Mukerji, J. in Gajendra Singh v. Durga Kunwar, the judgments of Rankin, J. in The Dekari Tea Co., Ltd. v. The India General Steam Navigation Co., Ltd. and Amar Chand Chamaria v. Banwari Lall Rakshit, and the case of Hari Parshad v. Soogni Devi are relied on. In Bombay High Court, Macleod, C.J at first took a view which was in consonance with the above rulings: Shavakshaw v. Tyab Haji Ayub. But, at a later date, the learned Chief Justice took a contrary view in Manilal Motilal v. Gokaldas Rowji. This later view is in accord with Chinna Venkatasami Naicken v. Venkatasami Naicken. At p. 268 Fawcett, J. has referred to cases, but they are all distinguishable. Judges Sir Amberson Marten Kt., C.J Mr. Crump Mr. Blackwell, JJ. Acts section 375 in the 1882 Code. Chapter VI and sections 312 to 327 in the 1859 Code became Chapter XXXVII and sections 506 to 526 in the 1882 Code. Sections 506 Indian Contract Act, 1872: the Specific Relief Act, 1877: the Indian Arbitration Act, 1899: and section 89 and Schedule II to the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. section 121; Schedule II by section 89; Schedule III by section 69; and Schedule IV by section 155. section 375 of the Civil Procedure Code of 1882 (corresponding with Order XXIII, Rule 3) section 89 can the provisions of Schedule II of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Civil Procedure Code of 1859. Sections 312 to 327 of that Code contain provisions sections 320 to 325C. Section 320 created the jurisdiction. Sections 321 Indian Companies Act and the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act. Code of Civil Procedure, and the Indian Arbitration Act, 1899, Section 98 of the Code of 1859 and 375 of the Code of 1882 section 89 and Schedule II to the Civil Procedure Code. section 327 of the old Procedure Code (Act VIII) of 1859, Code is section 69. The provisions of the Code of 1882 Order XXIII, Rule 3, or otherwise. Order XXIII, Rule 3, section 28, Exception 1, of the Indian Contract Act section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. SECTION 98 CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE Indian Contract Act, 1872, section 28, Exception SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT Indian Arbitration Act containing provisions SECTION 89 CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE provisions of clauses 1 and 2 of section 9, sections 312 and 325 of the Code of 1859 provisions of the Indian Arbitration Act section 327 of the Civil Procedure Code Order XXIII, Rule 3, of the Code of 1908. section 28 of the Indian Contract Act. sections 312 and 325 (Act VIII of 1859) Order VIII, Rules 8 and 9, of the Code, section 89 in the new Code of 1908 sections 68, 70 and 71 of the Code section 89 of the Code of 1908.I provisions of Order XXIII, Rule 3, Code of 1882, the old section 98 section 327 of the Code of 1859 section 525 of the Code of 1882 section 375 of the 1882 Code, Indian Arbitration Act, 1899, section 98 of the 1859 Code, section 2(1), the term Code Regulation IV, section 26, Code of 1859, section 98 section 10 of the Code, Order XXIII, Rule 3.I Indian Contract Act, Order XXIII, Rule 3, See more information ... This judgment contains sensitive subject matter and is not displayed to guest users. Please sign into access the full judgment, citations, and related authorities. Log in Create free account