TMI Blog2009 (10) TMI 952X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as been filed against the judgment and order dated 14th May, of the High Court of Judicature at Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur. The facts in detail have been set out in the impugned judgment and hence we are not repeating the same here. Briefly stated the facts are that the appellant herein entered into an agreement with the respondent and appointed the appellant as a principal dealer for sale of i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the signature on behalf of the claimant-respondent was made under a mistake and hence the same was not binding. Accordingly, the arbitrator re-examined each head of account and ultimately held the appellant liable to pay to the respondent a sum of ₹ 49.90 lakhs alongwith interest. Objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter for short 'the Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n a person signs a document, there is a presumption, unless there is proof of force or fraud, that he has read the document properly and understood it and only then he has affixed his signatures thereon, otherwise no signature on a document can ever be accepted. In particular, businessmen, being careful people (since their money is involved) would have ordinarily read and understood a document bef ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
