Report No. 76

10.14. Section 47, Arbitration Act and Order 23, rule 3.-

The question whether an award made by an arbitrator (otherwise than on a formal reference by the court) can be recorded as a 'compromise' under Order 23, rule 3, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, has been discussed in several cases1-3, and there appears to have arisen controversy on the subject in the past. The controversy owed its origin to the application of section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; that section has since been repealed. The matter now seems to have been settled by the proviso to section 47 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. The old cases before 1940 are not, therefore, of much importance now. The view subsequently taken is that such award can be accepted as a compromise only if, subsequent to its makings-4-5, the parties agree to abide by it.

1. Dular Koeri v. Payag Koeri, AIR 1942 All 145 (147) (FB) (reviews case-law).

2. Chanbassappa v. Basalingayya, AIR 1927 Born 585 (FB) (Award can be regarded as compromise).

3. Jugaldas v. Pursotam, ILR 1955 1 Cal 12: AIR 1953 Cal 690 (reviews case law).

4. Sitaramji v. Ramnath Singh, AIR 1961 Pat 448.

5. Abdul Rahman v. Mohammad Siddiqui, AIR 1953 Mad 781 (FB).

10.15. Section 48.-

Section 48 contains a saving for pending references, and does not need any comment.