Decided on November 06,1963



Sharfuddin Ahmed, J. - (1.) THIS Miscellaneous Appeal (No. 331 of 1958) arises out of the judgment and order of the Sub-ordinate Judge, Masulipatnam dated 17th of April 1958 made in O. P. No. 21 of 1956 on his file while A. S. No. 260 of 1958 is directed against the order of the Court, refusing to pass a decree in terms of the award, made in the suit (O. S. No. 17 of 1956) filed by the 9th respondent in the said O. P. The 5th respondent is the appellant in C. M. A. No. 231 of 1958 while the 9th respondent in the O. P. is the appellant in the other appeal. The parties will be described for the sake of convenience as arrayed in O. P. No. 21 of 1956.
(2.) THE relevant facts may briefly be stated. THE petitioner in O. P. No. 21 of 1956 and respondents Nos. 1 to 9 were running a partnership business under the name and style of Sri Murali Krishna Rice Mill Contractor Company of which R. 1 was the Working Manager. THE Mill was taken on lease by the partnership firm from 5-12-195 (sic) till the end of November 1952. THE petitioner had a four-anna share and subscribed considerably towards the capital. THE 1st respondent as the Working Manager and the 3rd respondent as the General Manager were in-charge for running the business, maintenance of accounts and other acts incidental to the running of the business. After sometime disputes arose between the partners regarding the settlement of accounts and as to whether the partnership ended in loss or profits. THE matter was ultimately referred to an arbitrator, the 17th respondent who is an advocate practising at Masulipatnam and all the parties concerned executed an arbitration agreement dated 20/07/1955, Ex. A.1, in his favour. THE arbitrator passed an award, Ex. A.2, dated 6/01/1956 after going through the accounts of the partnership and scrutinising the-claims of various creditors. The petitioner thereupon filed a petition under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act praying to set aside the award given by the 17th respondent in the O. P. It was contended by him that the award was illegal and vitiated as the arbitrator had not examined the accounts and did not give findings on each of the several questions specifically referred to him for decision. It was also alleged that the arbitrator did not decide the share of the partners, the amount advanced by each of them and whether the accounts were genuine or not. Respondents 2, 3 and 16 supported the contention of the petitioner while the 5th respondent i.e., the appellant herein pleaded that the enquiry held by the arbitrator was complete and the award was not liable to be set aside. Respondents Nos. 1, 4, 7, 8, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 18 remained ex parte. The learned Subordinate Judge on a consideration of the documents produced before him and the arguments advanced on either side came to the conclusion that the award, Ex. A.2, was invalid and was, therefore, liable to be set aside. The Civil Miscellaneoue Appeal arises against the said order. He consequently dismissed the suit filed by the 9th respondent to pass a decree in terms of the award, which is the subject-matter of A. S. No. 260 of 1958,
(3.) THE learned counsel for the appellant contends that the lower Court was not justified in setting aside the award merely because the award did not record findings on each and every aspect of the matter that had been referred for determination. According to him as it had finally decided the rights of the parties it should have been accepted notwithstanding the omission on the part of the arbitrator to record a finding on certain aspects. It would be convenient to reproduce the relevant portion of the arbitration agreement at this stage : "It is found better to appoint you as an arbitrator as you are interested in the well-being of all of us. THErefore, this arbitration agreement is executed in your favour for a determination of all the questions in dispute between us, namely, (i) the amounts advanced by each of parties 1 to 9 to the partnership-firm; (2) whether the partnership business ended in a loss or profit and whether the accounts to be produced before you are genuine or not, and whether the entries of credit and debit in those books are valid or not; (3) Whether parties 10 to 17 advanced any amounts to the partnership. If it is found that they advanced any amounts, how much of the amounts are to be discharged and in what way they have to be discharged and which of the partners has to discharge them; and (4) to examine all the accounts of the partnership business, to settle the profit and less and determine whether the partners have to pay any amounts to others i.e., to parties 10 to 17, and what amounts are due from each of the parties Nos. 1 to 9 inter se. You are requested to consider all the above questions and to determine them either by examining any parties or not examining them and we all agree to be bound by the award to be passed by you.";

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.