Share
Santa Singh v Avtar Singh (Civil Suit No. 1178 of 1952) [1954] EACA 61 (1 January 1954)
- Citation
- [1954] EACA 61
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Court
- East African Court of Appeal
- Panel
- Rudd J
- Case number
- Civil Suit No. 1178 of 1952
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- East African Court of Appeal
- Panel
- Rudd J
- Case number
- Civil Suit No. 1178 of 1952
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The Court held that Order 50, rule 1 applies to the situation where a suit is stood over generally and the parties agree to refer the matter to arbitration. In such circumstances, bringing the matter up by motion is not improper and is, in fact, the correct procedure. The Court distinguished between cases where the agreement to arbitrate is made during the hearing, in which case a formal motion may be dispensed with, and cases where the suit is stood over generally, where a motion is appropriate. The objection to the competency of the motion was therefore overruled.
Court disposition
motion granted
Orders
- The motion for the Court to implement the arbitration reference is granted.
02
Material facts
Parties
Santa Singh
Plaintiff Counsel: HandaAvtar Singh
Defendant Counsel: D. N. Khanna03
Procedural history
Posture
Civil Suit / Motion for Implementation of Arbitration Reference
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether a motion for the Court to implement an arbitration reference is competent under Order 50, rule 1 of the Civil Procedure (Revised) Rules, 1948.
- 02
Whether the proper procedure for implementing an arbitration agreement when a suit is stood over generally is by motion.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicant contends that since the parties agreed to refer their dispute to arbitration and a reference was prepared and signed, the proper course is to apply by motion for the Court to implement the reference under Order 50, rule 1.
- Respondent
- The respondent objects to the competency of the motion, arguing that such a motion is unnecessary and improper, though he concedes that the matter must be dealt with in open Court.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Civil Procedure (Revised) Rules, 1948, Order 50, rule 1
Order 50, rule 1 of the Civil Procedure (Revised) Rules, 1948 permits the implementation of an arbitration reference by motion when a suit is stood over generally.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The Court held that Order 50, rule 1 applies to the situation where a suit is stood over generally and the parties agree to refer the matter to arbitration. In such circumstances, bringing the matter up by motion is not improper and is, in fact, the correct procedure. The Court distinguished between cases where the agreement to arbitrate is made during the hearing, in which case a formal motion may be dispensed with, and cases where the suit is stood over generally, where a motion is appropriate. The objection to the competency of the motion was therefore overruled.
Obiter and limits
- When an agreement to refer a matter to arbitration is made during the hearing or brought to the notice of the Court when the suit was at hearing or down for hearing, the Court may dispense with a formal motion.
- Where a case is standing over generally and the parties agree to refer the matter to arbitration, bringing the matter up by motion is the correct course.
Court disposition
motion granted
- The motion for the Court to implement the arbitration reference is granted.
Source and reliance status
East African Court of Appeal
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
East African Court of Appeal
Judgment
ORIGINAL CIVIL
Before Rudd, J.
SANTA SINGH, Plaintiff
ν. AVTAR SINGH, Defendant
Civil Suit No. 1178 of 1952
Civil Procedure and Practice—Civil Procedure (Revised) Rules, 1948—Suit stood over generally on agreement to arbitrate—Motion for reference to be implemented by order of Court—Order 50, rule 1—Whether competent.
A suit was taken out of the hearing list and stood over generally, by agreement of parties, to arbitrate. A reference was prepared and signed. The plaintiff applied, by motion, for an order of the Court that the reference be implemented. The defendant objected to the competency.
Held (13-7-54).—Order 50, rule 1 applied. The parties had agreed to refer the matter to arbitration and the proper course to obtain an order for the Court to implement the reference was to apply by motion.
Handa for applicant.
D. N. Khanna for respondent.
ORDER.—This suit was taken out of the hearing list and stood over generally on 23rd June, 1954. The parties agreed to refer their difference to arbitration and a reference was prepared and signed. Mr. Handa for the plaintiff brought a motion for the reference to be implemented by an order of the Court. Mr. Khanna objects that a motion for such purpose is unnecessary and incompetent. He agrees the matter has to be dealt with in open Court. In my opinion Order 50, rule 1, applies and the motion is not improper. It may be that when an agreement to refer a matter to arbitration is made during the hearing or brought to the notice of the Court when the suit was at hearing or down for hearing, the Court may dispense with a formal motion; but when a case is standing over generally and the parties agree to refer the matter to arbitration, I see no objection to the matter being brought up on motion; indeed I think that is the correct course.
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.