BHARAT SPINNING AND WEAVING CO LTD Vs. MANILAL LALLUBHAI
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
BHARAT SPINNING AND WEAVING CO LTD
Click here to view full judgement.
Lancelot Sanderson, J. -
(1.) . This is an appeal by the Bharat Spinning & Weaving Company, Limited (hereinafter called the company) against a final order of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in its appellate jurisdiction dated March 24, 1933, which reversed an order made by a learned Judge of that Court in the exercise of its ordinary original civil jurisdiction dated September 8, 1932,
(2.) IN the Courts in INdia two of the points relied upon by the respondents to this appeal were, viz. : (1) whether an award under the INdian Arbitration Act (IX of 1899) against a firm in the name of the firm is valid ; and (2) "whether it is competent for the High Court under the provisions of Order XXI, Rule 50 (2), of the Code of Civil Procedure, to determine whether persons who dispute that they are partners in a firm against which an award has been made in the name of the firm are so liable.
Both the Courts in India decided these questions against the respondents and their learned counsel has not relied upon either of the two points in this appeal.
The only other questions were whether in fact the respondents were partners or held themselves out as partners in the firm of Mulchand Pranjivandas. This firm is hereafter referred to, for the sake of brevity, as the firm of M. P. The matter came before the learned Judge, Kania J. , upon what is called a " Chamber Summons," which was taken out on behalf of the company in the matter of the Indian Arbitration Act and in the matter of an arbitration between the company and the firm of M. P. and an award dated February 12, 1931.
(3.) THE summons asked for leave to the company to execute the said award, which was made against the firm of M. P. , against four individuals, viz. , (1) Harakhchand Tarachand (hereinafter called Harakchand); (2) Amersi Harji-vandas (hereinafter called Amersi) ; (3) Manilal Lallubhai; and (4) Madhav-lal Lallubhai. THE two last mentioned persons are the respondents to this appeal.
The summons was adjourned into Court for the determination of the liability of the respondents ; Harakchand and Amersi did not dispute their liability as partners in the firm of M. P.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.