SETH RADHE LAL Vs. LADLI PARSHAD
LAWS(P&H)-1957-1-24
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Decided on January 17,1957

SETH RADHE LAL Appellant
VERSUS
LADLI PARSHAD Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) THESE three execution appeals Nos. 34-D, 76-C and 110-C of 1956 have been filed by Seth radhey Lal in the following circumstances. Seth Mathura Parshad, who fs the respondent in two of the appeals, carried on a partnership firm called Mathura Parshad and Company along with his sons Seth Radliey Lal appel-lant and Seth Ladli Parshad who is the rescondent in the other appeal. In 1950 Ladli Parshad and Radhey Lal instituted a suit against their father for dissolution of partnership and rendition of accounts. The disputes between the parties were referred to the arbitration of Raja Ram a::d Ram Sarup who delivered their award on the 31st of October 1851.
(2.) THE objections filed by Ladli Parshad and Mathura Parshad to the award were ultimately dismissed and the award was made a rule of the Court on the 9th of October 1954. The partner-ship firm had apparently owned and been operating three factories, the Lakshmi Ice factory at Kauria Pul, the Ganesh Ice Factory and Seth Oil Mills at Ajmeri Gate and the Imperial ice Factory to which a bungalow is attached in New, Delhi. The arbitrators assessed t e values of these properties respectively at Rs. 2,00,000/- 2,50,000/-and 4,50,000/- and a-lotted the Lakshmi ice Factory to Mathura Parshad, the Ganesh Ice Factory and Seth Oil Mills to Ladli Parshad and the Imperial Ice Factory along with the bungalow to Radliey Lal. In view, however, of the disparity In value between these properties It was ordered that Radbey lal should pay Rs. 1,00,000/-to Mathura Parshad and Rs. 50,000/- to Ladli Parshad with future interest at the rate of 4 per cent per annum for the first year from the date of the award, and thereafter at 6 per cent per annum until the date of realisation, and it was provided in the award that Mathura Parshad and Ladli Parshad should have a lien on the Imperial Ice Factory and the attached bungalow in res-pect of the sums thus payable to them.
(3.) THEREAFTER in June 1955 Mathura prasad and in July 1955 Ladli Parshad, filed execution applications for the sums due to them in this way under the award including interest, which they sought to realise by the sale of the propertv on which these sums had been charged In the award and the decree based thereon. In both these execution applications Radhey Lal filed objections under Section 47, Civil Procedure Code, in which he alleged that the Imperial Ice Factory had been run in the period following the award by Mathura Parshad and Ladli Parshad and he therefore claimed that they were liable to render accounts to him regarding the running of the factory for the period from the 31st of October 1951 to the 9th of October 1954 when the award was made a rule of the Court. In the case of Mathura Parshad's execution application Radliey Lal also raised objections that certain sums were payable to him by Mathura Parshad under the terms of the award. Both mathura Parshad and Ladli Parshad raised the objection that the question of going into the accounts of the Imperial Ice Factory for the period following the delivery of the award of the arbitrators was not one which could be gone Into under 6. 47, Civil Procedure Code, by the executing Court which simply had to execute the award and decree as it stood. Mathura Parshad also raised an objection regarding the sums claimed by Radhey Lal under the award from him that the sums of money out of which these sums were to be paid to Radhey Lal had already been disposed of in making certain payments by agreement between all the three partners, and on this account he denied liability for payment.;


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