TMI Blog1971 (10) TMI 113X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etween the appellant and respondents 1 to 3 on one side and Pannalal and Smt. Dulari Bahu on the other side. Those proceedings related to partition of property and a claim for maintenance allowance by Dulari Bahu. An award was given in those proceedings and was made a rule of the Court on 13-12-1933. According to the award, Dulari Bahu was to get a maintenance allowance of ₹ 12/-per mensem from the appellant and his brothers. A charge was created of the maintenance allowance on the house which fell as a result of partition to the share of the appellant and respondents 1 to 3. It was also provided that if the appellant and his brothers failed to pay the monthly allowance, Dulari Bahu would be entitled to get the house sold. Out of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... yable to Durga Bahu and Sukhrani Bahu. The arbitrators thereafter gave their award dated 20th October, 1956 wherein they made provision for the amounts payable to different parties. Regarding the amount of maintenance allowance payable to Dulari Bahu, the award provided that ₹ 3,000/-out of the sale proceeds would be withdrawn from the Court and be deposited with Durgaprasad, respondent. Durgaprasad was made liable to pay the amount of ₹ 30/-per mensem as maintenance allowance to Dulari Bahu. The award further provided that out of the amount of ₹ 3,000/-, ₹ 1,000/-would be paid to Pannalal and ₹ 2,000/-to Durgaprasad on the death of Dulari Bahu. Dulari Bahu was also given a right of residence in a room and main ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he was to get the maintenance allowance from an amount of ₹ 3,000/- which was to be kept in deposit. The rights of Dulari Bahu in this respect remained intact and were in no way affected by the award dated 20th October, 1956. The maintenance allowance payable to her was also kept as a charge over the immovable property. The fact that Dulari Bahu did not sign the arbitration agreement as such would not vitiate the arbitration proceedings. The present is not a case wherein the arbitration proceedings are sought to be assailed by Dulari Bahu. On the contrary, it is the admitted case of the parties that Dulari Bahu did not raise any objection to the arbitration proceedings or the subsequent award on the ground that her rights had been pre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r adjustment of a suit by any Court before which the suit is pending . In such an event, the award is enforced as a compromise or adjustment of the suit because all the interested parties give their consent to the award. Where, however, as in the present case, no suit is pending with respect to the subject matter of dispute and the parties, choose to refer a dispute to arbitrators, it is not essential that the parties should signify their consent to the award before the same can be enforced. Any other view would run counter to the entire scheme and abject of arbitration for the settlement of disputes according to which, agreement and consent are imperative only at the stage of referring the dispute to arbitrators but not at the stage of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
