ABDUL KADIR SHAMSUDDIN BUBERE Vs. MADHAV PRABHAKAR OAK
LAWS(SC)-1961-9-23
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: BOMBAY)
Decided on
September 20,1961
ABDUL KADIR SHAMSUDDIN BUBERE
Appellant
VERSUS
MADHAV PRABHAKAR OAK
Respondents
Cited Judgements :-
JAMUNA TRANSPORT CORPORATION LTD VS. GHANASHYAMDAS BAHETI [LAWS(CAL)-2010-7-43] [REFERRED TO]MSM SATELLITE SINGAPORE PTE LTD VS. WORLD SPORT GROUP MAURITIUS LIMITED [LAWS(BOM)-2010-9-42] [REFERRED TO]
JHANSI-ORAI TOLLYWAY PVT. LTD. VS. BANK OF INDIA [LAWS(CHH)-2016-11-1] [REFERRED TO]
PREM KUMAR VS. HARBANS SINGH [LAWS(DLH)-1981-4-17] [REFERRED]
NANI GOPAL PAUL VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-1966-1-2] [REFERRED TO]
OIL AND NATURAL GAS COMMISSION VS. SOHAN LAL SHARMA [LAWS(CAL)-1967-9-20] [REFERRED TO]
GENERAL ENTERPRISES VS. JARDINE HANDERSON LTD [LAWS(CAL)-1977-8-24] [REFERRED TO]
MCDONALDS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED VS. VIKRAM BAKSHI & ORS [LAWS(DLH)-2016-7-20] [REFERRED TO]
M/S. K.R. IMPEX VS. M/S. PUNJAB LLOYD LTD. [LAWS(DLH)-2017-10-260] [REFERRED TO]
SPENTEX INDUSTRIES LTD. VS. QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN LLP [LAWS(DLH)-2020-5-34] [REFERRED TO]
CAPP INTERNATIONAL PVT LIMITED VS. SIDCO [LAWS(KER)-2003-1-60] [REFERRED TO]
PROTCHEM INDUSTRIES INDIA LTD VS. UNION BROS INDUSTRIES INC [LAWS(MAD)-1991-5-3] [REFERRED TO]
SAHARA INDIA COMMERCIAL CORP LTD VS. RASHMI PATHAK [LAWS(MPH)-2011-10-24] [REFERRED TO]
AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA VS. M/S. S.S.ENTERPRISE [LAWS(GJH)-2024-10-55] [REFERRED TO]
RAWALPINDI THEATRES P LTD VS. PATANJAL [LAWS(P&H)-1966-8-8] [REFERRED TO]
SHANMUGHASUNDARAM VS. DIRAVIA NADAR [LAWS(SC)-2005-3-15] [REFERRED TO]
SUVIDHAA INFO SERVE PRIVATE LIMITED VS. DAKSHIN HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM LIMITED [LAWS(P&H)-2015-10-63] [REFERRED TO]
COMMANDER REALTORS PVT. LTD. VS. SATBIR AND ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-2015-3-331] [REFERRED TO]
SUNDARAM BRAKE LININGS LTD VS. KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD [LAWS(MAD)-2008-7-514] [REFERRED TO]
A AYYASAMY VS. A PARAMASIVAM [LAWS(MAD)-2014-12-66] [REFERRED TO]
SATISH S/O RAGHUVIRCHAND SOOD VS. GUJRAT TALE LINKS PVT LTD [LAWS(BOM)-2013-7-192] [REFERRED TO]
PRIME TELESYSTEM LIMITED VS. SASKEN COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGIES LTD. AND ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2009-12-332] [REFERRED TO]
S K SHARMA VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2009-2-20] [REFERRED TO]
NARMADA KHAND UDYOG SAHAKARI MANDALI LIMITED VS. SUMAC INTERNATIONAL LIMITED [LAWS(GJH)-2018-7-361] [REFERRED TO]
BENGAL JUTE MILL CO. LTD. VS. LALCHAND DUGAR [LAWS(CAL)-1963-2-29] [REFERRED TO]
UTTAM CHAND RAKESH KUMAR VS. DERCO FOODS [LAWS(DLH)-2020-11-76] [REFERRED TO]
RRB ENERGY LIMITED VS. VESTAS WIND SYSTEMS AND ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2015-4-61] [REFERRED TO]
KANNAN DEVAN HILLS PRODUCE CO. LTD VS. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD [LAWS(KER)-1974-10-21] [REFERRED TO]
C G HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED VS. RAMASAMY ATHAPPAN [LAWS(MAD)-2011-8-257] [REFERRED TO]
BRAHMAPUTRA INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. VS. ASSAM VEGETABLE & OIL PRODUCTS LTD. [LAWS(GAU)-2021-9-10] [REFERRED TO]
S TARABAI VS. K JAYANTHI [LAWS(MAD)-2019-3-11] [REFERRED TO]
MCDONALD’S INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED VS. VIKRAM BAKSHI AND ORS. [LAWS(MPH)-2016-7-49] [REFERRED TO]
SAIBALANI DEVI VS. DIPTI BIKASH BHADURI [LAWS(PAT)-1968-12-9] [REFERRED TO]
N.N.GLOBAL MERCANTILE PRIVATE LIMITED VS. INDO UNIQUE FLAME LIMITED [LAWS(SC)-2021-1-16] [REFERRED TO]
SUSHANTA KUMAR VS. DILIP KUMAR [LAWS(ORI)-1987-1-9] [REFERRED TO]
BLUE WHALE LOGISTICS VS. CHANCHAL KANWAR [LAWS(MAD)-2012-11-240] [REFERRED TO]
ALASKA EXPORT USA INC. VS. ALASKA EXPORTS AND ORS. [LAWS(MAD)-2016-4-2] [REFERRED TO]
A. AYYASAMY VS. A. PARAMASIVAM & ORS. [LAWS(SC)-2016-10-22] [REFERRED TO]
LLOYDS STEEL INDUSTRIES LTD VS. OIL INDIA LTD [LAWS(RAJ)-2002-9-6] [REFERRED TO]
KUSUM LATA JAIN VS. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED [LAWS(DLH)-1972-12-15] [REFERRED]
MONTBLANC SIMPLO GMBH VS. ENTRACK INTERNATIONAL TRADING PVT LTD [LAWS(GJH)-2015-1-227] [REFERRED TO]
AESSEAL INDIA P LTD VS. K NAGESWARA RAO [LAWS(APH)-2011-8-98] [REFERRED TO]
REATOX RESORTS AND HOTELS PVT. LTD. VS. SREI EQUIPMENT FINANCE LTD. [LAWS(CAL)-2025-1-54] [REFERRED TO]
MUSTT MUSSART JAHAN VS. SWAPAN KUMAR PODDAR [LAWS(CAL)-1993-7-30] [REFERRED TO]
S AND D SECURITIES PVT LTD VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(CAL)-2002-5-41] [REFERRED TO]
RAM KISHAN MIMANI VS. GOVERDHAN DAS MIMANI [LAWS(CAL)-2010-4-80] [REFERRED TO]
KAPIL CHOPRA VS. SATISH CHOPRA [LAWS(DLH)-2013-5-44] [REFERRED TO]
DELHI INFRAMART PVT. LTD. VS. N.K. SINGHAL [LAWS(DLH)-2014-11-77] [REFERRED TO]
PAWAN KUMAR GUPTA VS. VINAY MALANI [LAWS(DLH)-2014-5-190] [REFERRED TO]
ASIA RESORTS LTD. VS. USHA BRECO LTD. [LAWS(HPH)-2003-8-23] [REFERRED TO]
FORCE FITNESS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED VS. BENGALURU FITNESS CENTRE PRIVATE LIMITED [LAWS(KAR)-2015-7-130] [REFERRED TO]
PRABHAKAR REDDY VS. H.R. RAVICHANDRA AND ORS. [LAWS(KAR)-2015-7-237] [REFERRED TO]
RAJ SHEKHAR VS. GOVIND LAL SAHU [LAWS(JHAR)-2018-5-155] [REFERRED TO]
AVITEL POST STUDIOZ LIMITED VS. HSBC PI HOLDINGS (MAURITIUS) LIMITED [LAWS(SC)-2020-8-25] [REFERRED TO]
M/S. SBQ STEELS LIMITED VS. M/S. GOYAL GASES PRIVATE LIMITED [LAWS(MAD)-2013-12-4] [REFERRED TO]
BHARAT LAL VS. HARYANA CHIT PRIVATE LIMITED [LAWS(DLH)-1998-5-97] [REFERRED]
MARUTI CLEAN COAL AND POWER LTD. VS. KOLAHAI INFOTECH PVT. LTD. AND ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2010-3-509] [REFERRED TO]
JIWANLAL RAJ NARAIN KHANNA VS. RADHEY LAL [LAWS(DLH)-1967-10-29] [REFERRED]
KALIPADA DAS VS. NORTH BIHAR SUGAR MILLS LTD [LAWS(CAL)-1981-1-16] [REFERRED TO]
FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA VS. B CHITTIBUBU [LAWS(APH)-1982-10-44] [REFERRED TO]
ATUL AND ARKADE REALTY VS. I.A. AND I.C. PRIVATE LIMITED [LAWS(BOM)-2022-5-65] [REFERRED TO]
INDIAN OIL CORPORATION PVT LTD A COMPANY OWNED VS. POPPAT JAMAL AND SONS [LAWS(MAD)-1990-8-82] [REFERRED TO]
CONSULTING ENGINEERING SERVICES PVT LTD VS. GOVERNMENT OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2014-4-91] [REFERRED TO]
VANDANA GUPTA AND ORS. VS. KUWAIT AIRWAYS LTD. AND ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2015-8-42] [REFERRED TO]
ORIENTAL FIRE AND GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD VS. USHARANI KAR [LAWS(CAL)-1978-3-10] [REFERRED TO]
SHAH CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LIMITED VS. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-1984-5-44] [REFERRED]
SUBHASH CHANDER KATHURIA VS. ASHOK ALLOYS STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [LAWS(DLH)-1995-7-99] [REFERRED]
GREENPEACE LUXURY HOMES, LLP VS. V ANANTHA NARAYANAN [LAWS(MAD)-2019-1-152] [REFERRED TO]
KURIACHEN VS. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD [LAWS(KER)-1977-10-21] [REFERRED TO]
DEBAPRATIM NEOGIE VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2024-4-24] [REFERRED TO]
PATANJAL VS. RAWALPINDI THEATRESPVT LIMITED [LAWS(DLH)-1969-4-10] [REFERRED]
GOKUL CHAND D MORARKA VS. COMPANY LAW BOARD [LAWS(DLH)-1972-4-18] [REFERRED 10.]
SANJAY SUGANCHAND KASLIWAL VS. JUGALKISHOR CHHAGANLAL TAPADIA [LAWS(BOM)-2013-11-89] [REFERRED TO]
MAHESH KUMAR SHARMA & ANR. VS. BADAL CHANDER CHOUDHURY [LAWS(GAU)-2012-8-179] [REFERRED TO]
BANK OF BARODA VS. RANJAN CHETIA [LAWS(GAU)-2014-9-11] [REFERRED TO]
INDIAN DAIRY CORPORATION VS. LASCO [LAWS(CAL)-1981-7-59] [REFERRED TO]
AKHTAR VS. SUMAN JAIN [LAWS(DLH)-2013-8-247] [REFERRED TO]
PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK VS. KOHINOOR FOODS LIMITED [LAWS(DLH)-2015-2-245] [REFERRED]
VANDANA GUPTA AND ANR. VS. KUWAIT AIRWAYS LTD AND ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2015-5-627] [REFERRED TO]
ALLIANCE PAINTS AND VARNISH WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED VS. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2001-8-122] [REFERRED]
RAYMON ENGINEERING WORKS LTD VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(CAL)-1972-1-15] [REFERRED TO]
JAIN HOUSING AND ESTATES, CHENNAI REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER MR. SANDEEP R. MEHTA AND ANR. VS. C. KESAVANRAM AND ORS. [LAWS(MAD)-2005-9-167] [REFERRED TO]
MUNIKEMPAIAH BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2011-9-1] [REFERRED TO]
C.S. Ravishankar, S/o. C.K. Shivanna, Aged about 31 years, Resident of Chikkabally Village, Basaralu Hobli, Mandya Taluk-571 446 and Sri. S. Bhojappa, S/o. late Subbegowda, Aged about 65 years, Residing at Door No. 6, Block No. 16, B.E.M.L. Layout, Sriram VS. [LAWS(KAR)-2011-9-217] [REFERRED TO]
N RADHAKRISHNAN VS. MAESTRO ENGINEERS [LAWS(SC)-2009-10-44] [REFERRED TO]
WORLD SPORT GROUP (MAURITIUS) LTD VS. MSM SATELLITE (SINGAPORE) PTE. LTD [LAWS(SC)-2014-1-48] [REFERRED TO]
IVORY PROPERTIES AND HOTELS PVT LTD VS. NUSLI NEVILLE WADIA [LAWS(BOM)-2011-1-44] [REFERRED TO]
M/S SHRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE COMPANY LTD. VS. SMTI. RUMA SAHA [LAWS(GAU)-2016-4-28] [REFERRED TO]
SIMRAN SODHI VS. SANDEEP SINGH [LAWS(DLH)-2022-11-15] [REFERRED TO]
ASHOK DIWAN VS. SHANTIBAI [LAWS(MPH)-2013-7-234] [REFERRED TO]
GUINESS SECURITIES LIMITED VS. DEVANG DILIP VYAS [LAWS(CAL)-2014-8-93] [REFERRED TO]
GUINESS SECURITIES LIMITED VS. DEVANG DILIP VYAS [LAWS(CAL)-2014-8-93] [REFERRED TO]
RAJ PAL MANCHANDA VS. KAMAL KISHORE MANCHANDA [LAWS(DLH)-2010-8-305] [REFERRED TO]
PREMIER ROAD CARRIERS LTD. VS. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION [LAWS(CAL)-1983-5-27] [REFERRED TO]
C.E. CONSTRUCTIONS LTD. VS. INTERTOLL ICS INDIA (P) LTD. [LAWS(DLH)-2014-11-86] [REFERRED TO]
RAVINDRA ANANT DESHMUKH VS. CITY AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF MAH LIMITED [LAWS(BOM)-1993-6-31] [REFERRED TO]
FR.THOMAS EKKA VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2021-8-58] [REFERRED TO]
K.R. IMPEX VS. PUNJAB LLOYD LTD. [LAWS(DLH)-2017-10-246] [REFERRED TO]
SK TALIM ALI VS. HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. [LAWS(ORI)-2020-4-3] [REFERRED TO]
H G OOMOR SAIT VS. O ASLAM SAIT [LAWS(MAD)-2001-6-71] [REFERRED TO]
M/S OTG GLOBAL FINANCE VS. CORPORATION (AREA) BASKETBALL TRUST AND ANR [LAWS(MPH)-2018-1-147] [REFERRED TO]
NARENDRA SINGH VS. ASHENDRA MISHRA AND ORS. [LAWS(MPH)-2020-1-321] [REFERRED TO]
C S RAVISHANKAR VS. C K RAVISHANKAR [LAWS(KAR)-2011-9-2] [REFERRED TO]
B K MITRA VS. KAMAL TIWARI [LAWS(RAJ)-2001-8-62] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
K.N.WANCHOO -
(1.)THIS is an appeal on a certificate granted by the Bombay High Court. An application was filed under S. 20 of the Arbitration Act, No. X of 1940, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by the two respondents against the appellant praying that the arbitration agreement dated 27/02/1953 may be filed in court, arbitration be made accordingly, and thereafter a decree in terms of the award made by the arbitrator be passed.
(2.)THE circumstances in which the application was made were these. THEre is a forest in village Done, which belonged to three persons, namely, Madhav Prabhakar Oak, respondent No. 1, (hereinafter referred to as Oak), Babaji Chandrarao Rane, uncle of the second respondent (hereinafter referred to as Babaji), Gajanan Babaji Rane (hereinafter called. Gajanan). Oak had six annas share in the forest, Babaji eight annas share and Gajanan two annas share. It may be mentioned that Gajanan's share was purchased by the appellant in November 1944. On 22/10/1948, a partnership agreement was arrived at between Babaji, Oak and the appellant for cutting the forest. THE value of the forest for the three owners was fixed at Rs. 60,000 which was to be divided amongst them according to their shares. THE work of cutting was to be done by the appellant who appears to be an experienced forest contractor. Any income over and above the expenditure incurred in the cutting and the value of the forest was to be divided equally amongst the three partners; if there was any loss that was also to be borne equally by them. It appears, however, that nothing was done in pursuance of this agreement, apparently because a suit had been filed by two persons with whom there was an earlier agreement of 1939 about the cutting of this very forest. It appears also that in March 1951 Gajanan and the appellant executed another document in which the price of Gajanan's share to be paid by the appellant was raised. In May 1951 Babaji died. Consequently in May 1952 another agreement was executed between the appellant and the heirs of Babaji, namely, Anant Yeshwant Rane respondent No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as Anant), Ambikabai, widow of Babaji, Gajanan and his mother Devubai and Oak. This agreement referred to the earlier agreement of 1948 & was obviously necessitated on account of the death of Babaji. It confirmed that agreement and stated that it was drawn up because of the necessity of Anant, Ambikabai and Devubai being made parties to the settlement in the agreement of 1948. THE consideration of Rs. 60,000 was divided between the owners and Rs. 51,000 was to go to Oak, Anant and Ambikabai and the rest represented the price for which the appellant had purchase the share of Gajanan and his mother Devubai. Nothing seems to have been done in pursuance of this agreement either. In October 1952, another agreement was entered into between the appellant, the two respondents and one Khan Bahadur Divkar by which the cutting of the forest was assigned to Divkar for a sum of Rs, 1,00,000. This amount was to be divided between the appellant and the respondents; Anant was to get Rs. 44,800, Oak Rs. 35,700 and the appellant Rs. 19,500. Divkar was unable to carry out his part of this agreement. Eventually on 27/02/1953, an agreement was entered into between the appellant and the two respondents as Divkar had not carried out his agreement. It was agreed between the parties that the dispute with Divkar be got decided and the forest be cut in accordance with the agreements of 22/10/1948 and 5/05/1952. THE operative part of this agreement also contained a term for arbitration in Cl. 6(4), which is in these terms :-
"Should there be a dispute between the parties in connection with this agreement or in connection with the agreements dated 22-10-1948 and 5-5-1952 or regarding Khan Bahadur Divkar's money or the jungle cutting or export or in any other way, the same should be got decided in accordance with the current law by appointing arbitrators and through them."
It appears that thereafter the forest was cut by the appellant; but disputes appear to have arisen between the parties to the last agreement of 1953; consequently respondents Nos. 1 and 2 filed the application under S, 20 of the Act in August 1954.
The case put forward by the respondents in the application was that the appellant, though he carried on the work of cutting the forest, did not carry out the terms of the agreement of 1953 and showed the statements of accounts intermittently to the respondents. It was alleged that the accounts were not made up to date, and in spite of the respondent's demand that the accounts should be made up to date, the appellant did not do so. The respondents also demanded that the goods remaining to be sold should be disposed of with the consent of all; but this was also not agreed to by the appellant. The statement of accounts shown to the respondent was not complete and correct. The whole stock of goods was not to be found in the statement of accounts and the debit items seemed to have been exaggerated and were not correct; and consequently it was not possible to carry on the business of partnership with the appellant and it was necessary to dissolve the partnership and take accounts of the partnership. It was also said that the appointment of a receiver had become necessary in order to protect the interest of the respondents and that an injunction should be granted restraining the appellant from removing the stock in balance so as to avoid misappropriation thereof pending the appointment of a receiver. The respondents prayed that the agreement of February 1953 for referring the dispute in connection with the agreements dated 22/10/1948 and 27/02/1953, between them and the appellant should be filed in court and necessary directions made by the court.
(3.)THE application was opposed by the appellant. THE agreement of 27/02/1953, was admitted by the appellant; but it was contended that no reference should be made to the arbitrator and a number of grounds were urged in that connection. It is not necessary for purposes of this appeal to refer to all the grounds in reply to the application of the respondents. We shall only refer to those grounds which have been urged before us and they are as below :-
(1) Ambikabai, widow of Babaji, admittedly had a share in the forest and as she was not a party to the application there could be no reference to arbitration as the whole dispute as to the forest would not be before the arbitrators.
(2) THE respondents only desired in their application that the disputes arising out of the agreements of 22/10/1948 and 27/02/1953 be referred to arbitration but did not include the agreement of 5/05/1952, and therefore no reference should be made as it would be a piecemeal reference resulting in splitting up the cause of action.
(3) THE dispute sought to be referred was not covered by the arbitration clause.
(4) THE respondents had made allegations of fraud against the appellant in their application and that was also a ground for not referring the dispute to arbitration.
It may be mentioned that the respondents later applied for the appointment of a receiver, and that application was allowed. Eventually, however, the trial court dismissed the application under S, 20 on two main grounds, namely, (i) that all the parties who were necessary in the matter of accounting were not parties to the application under S. 20, and (ii) that there were allegations of fraud against the appellant and therefore this was not a fit case to be referred to arbitration.
(2.)THE circumstances in which the application was made were these. THEre is a forest in village Done, which belonged to three persons, namely, Madhav Prabhakar Oak, respondent No. 1, (hereinafter referred to as Oak), Babaji Chandrarao Rane, uncle of the second respondent (hereinafter referred to as Babaji), Gajanan Babaji Rane (hereinafter called. Gajanan). Oak had six annas share in the forest, Babaji eight annas share and Gajanan two annas share. It may be mentioned that Gajanan's share was purchased by the appellant in November 1944. On 22/10/1948, a partnership agreement was arrived at between Babaji, Oak and the appellant for cutting the forest. THE value of the forest for the three owners was fixed at Rs. 60,000 which was to be divided amongst them according to their shares. THE work of cutting was to be done by the appellant who appears to be an experienced forest contractor. Any income over and above the expenditure incurred in the cutting and the value of the forest was to be divided equally amongst the three partners; if there was any loss that was also to be borne equally by them. It appears, however, that nothing was done in pursuance of this agreement, apparently because a suit had been filed by two persons with whom there was an earlier agreement of 1939 about the cutting of this very forest. It appears also that in March 1951 Gajanan and the appellant executed another document in which the price of Gajanan's share to be paid by the appellant was raised. In May 1951 Babaji died. Consequently in May 1952 another agreement was executed between the appellant and the heirs of Babaji, namely, Anant Yeshwant Rane respondent No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as Anant), Ambikabai, widow of Babaji, Gajanan and his mother Devubai and Oak. This agreement referred to the earlier agreement of 1948 & was obviously necessitated on account of the death of Babaji. It confirmed that agreement and stated that it was drawn up because of the necessity of Anant, Ambikabai and Devubai being made parties to the settlement in the agreement of 1948. THE consideration of Rs. 60,000 was divided between the owners and Rs. 51,000 was to go to Oak, Anant and Ambikabai and the rest represented the price for which the appellant had purchase the share of Gajanan and his mother Devubai. Nothing seems to have been done in pursuance of this agreement either. In October 1952, another agreement was entered into between the appellant, the two respondents and one Khan Bahadur Divkar by which the cutting of the forest was assigned to Divkar for a sum of Rs, 1,00,000. This amount was to be divided between the appellant and the respondents; Anant was to get Rs. 44,800, Oak Rs. 35,700 and the appellant Rs. 19,500. Divkar was unable to carry out his part of this agreement. Eventually on 27/02/1953, an agreement was entered into between the appellant and the two respondents as Divkar had not carried out his agreement. It was agreed between the parties that the dispute with Divkar be got decided and the forest be cut in accordance with the agreements of 22/10/1948 and 5/05/1952. THE operative part of this agreement also contained a term for arbitration in Cl. 6(4), which is in these terms :-
"Should there be a dispute between the parties in connection with this agreement or in connection with the agreements dated 22-10-1948 and 5-5-1952 or regarding Khan Bahadur Divkar's money or the jungle cutting or export or in any other way, the same should be got decided in accordance with the current law by appointing arbitrators and through them."
It appears that thereafter the forest was cut by the appellant; but disputes appear to have arisen between the parties to the last agreement of 1953; consequently respondents Nos. 1 and 2 filed the application under S, 20 of the Act in August 1954.
The case put forward by the respondents in the application was that the appellant, though he carried on the work of cutting the forest, did not carry out the terms of the agreement of 1953 and showed the statements of accounts intermittently to the respondents. It was alleged that the accounts were not made up to date, and in spite of the respondent's demand that the accounts should be made up to date, the appellant did not do so. The respondents also demanded that the goods remaining to be sold should be disposed of with the consent of all; but this was also not agreed to by the appellant. The statement of accounts shown to the respondent was not complete and correct. The whole stock of goods was not to be found in the statement of accounts and the debit items seemed to have been exaggerated and were not correct; and consequently it was not possible to carry on the business of partnership with the appellant and it was necessary to dissolve the partnership and take accounts of the partnership. It was also said that the appointment of a receiver had become necessary in order to protect the interest of the respondents and that an injunction should be granted restraining the appellant from removing the stock in balance so as to avoid misappropriation thereof pending the appointment of a receiver. The respondents prayed that the agreement of February 1953 for referring the dispute in connection with the agreements dated 22/10/1948 and 27/02/1953, between them and the appellant should be filed in court and necessary directions made by the court.
(3.)THE application was opposed by the appellant. THE agreement of 27/02/1953, was admitted by the appellant; but it was contended that no reference should be made to the arbitrator and a number of grounds were urged in that connection. It is not necessary for purposes of this appeal to refer to all the grounds in reply to the application of the respondents. We shall only refer to those grounds which have been urged before us and they are as below :-
(1) Ambikabai, widow of Babaji, admittedly had a share in the forest and as she was not a party to the application there could be no reference to arbitration as the whole dispute as to the forest would not be before the arbitrators.
(2) THE respondents only desired in their application that the disputes arising out of the agreements of 22/10/1948 and 27/02/1953 be referred to arbitration but did not include the agreement of 5/05/1952, and therefore no reference should be made as it would be a piecemeal reference resulting in splitting up the cause of action.
(3) THE dispute sought to be referred was not covered by the arbitration clause.
(4) THE respondents had made allegations of fraud against the appellant in their application and that was also a ground for not referring the dispute to arbitration.
It may be mentioned that the respondents later applied for the appointment of a receiver, and that application was allowed. Eventually, however, the trial court dismissed the application under S, 20 on two main grounds, namely, (i) that all the parties who were necessary in the matter of accounting were not parties to the application under S. 20, and (ii) that there were allegations of fraud against the appellant and therefore this was not a fit case to be referred to arbitration.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.