- (1.) The four appellants and respondents 1 and 2 are brothers. They were carrying on business in partnership in the name and style of Messers Sivalinga Nadar and Brothers and S. V. S. Oil Mills, both partnerships being registered under the Partnership Act, 1932. Most of the properties were acquired by the firm of Sivalinga Nadar and Brothers. The firm of Messrs S. V. S. Oil Mills merely had leasehold rights in the parcel of land belonging to the first-named firm on which the superstructure of the oil mill stood. Both the partnerships were of fixed durations. Disputes arose between the six brothers in regard to the business carried on in partnership in the aforesaid two names. For the resolution of these disputes the six brothers entered into an arbitration agreement dated 8/10/1981, which was as under: "We are carrying on business in partnership together with other partners under several partnership names. We are also holding shares and managing the Public Limited Company, namely, the Madras Vanaspati Ltd. , at Villupuram. Disputes have arisen among us with 593 respect to the several business concerns, immovable and moveable properties standing in our names as well as other relatives. We are hereby referring all our disputes, the details of which would be given by us shortly to you, namely. Sri B. B. Naidu, Sri K. R. Ramamani and Sri Seetharaman. We agree to abide by your award as to our disputes. "all the three arbitrators were fairly well-conversant with the business carried on in different names by the aforesaid two partnership firms; the first two being their Tax Consultants and the third being their Chartered Accountant. The parties, therefore, had complete faith and trust in their objectivity and impartiality.
(2.) The arbitrators accepted and entered upon the reference and after giving the disputants full and complete opportunity to place their rival points of view before them, circulated a draft award and after considering the response and reaction of the disputants thereon made their final award on 9/07/1984. The concluding part of the award reads as under: "We hereby direct that each of the parties be allotted the schedule of properties mentioned in the various Schedules 'a' to 'f' annexed to this award. 589. htm we direct that the firms of M/s Sivalinga Nadar and Bros. and M/s S. V. S. Oil Mills and also the joint house property Rent Account be dissolved as at the close of business on 14/07/1984. "the arbitrators then proceed to set out the properties belonging to or claimed to belong to the aforesaid two firms in paragraphs 6 to 24 of their award. Paragraph 25 is a residuary clause which says that any asset left out or realised hereafter or any liability found due other than those reflected in the account books, shall, likewise, be divided and/or borne equally among the disputants. Paragraphs 26 and 27 deal with the use of the firm names. Paragraph 28 refers to the claim of Smt C. Kanthimathi, sister of the six partners, with which we are not concerned in these appeals. Paragraph 29 refers to the business carried on by the relatives of the disputants in the names of Sri Brahmasakthi Agency and Srimagal Finance Corporation. The arbitrators have recognised the fact that even though the said business is notcarried on by the disputants it would be desirable to dissolve the said firms also w. e. f. 24/07/1984 in the larger interest of peace and amity among the disputants and their relatives. Paragraph 30 refers to the properties standing in the name of the father of the six disputants, i. e. , partners of the two firms in question. It is stated that although initially the disputants had shown an inclination to refer the dispute concerning the properties owned by their father to the arbitration of the three arbitrators but when it was noticed that the deceased had left a will disposing of the properties the need for resolution of the dispute through arbitration did not survive. In paragraph 31 the arbitrators have determined their fees and have directed the disputants to bear them equally. At the end of the award the properties falling to the share of the disputants have been set out in detail in Schedules 'a' to 'f' referred to earlier.
(3.) After the award was made on 9/07/1984, O. P. No. 230 of 1984 was filed by S. V. Chandrapandian and Others for a direction to the arbitrators to file their award in court which was done. Thereupon, the applicants S. V. Chandrapandian and others filed a Miscellaneous Application No. 3503 of 1984 requesting the court to pass a decree in terms of the award. Before orders could be passed on that application, O. P. Nos. 247 and 275 of 1984 were filed by S. V. Sivalinga Nadar and S. V. Harikrishnan respectively under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act to set aside the award. The said applications came up for hearing before a learned Single Judge of the High court. Various points were raised and decided by the learned Single Judge but it would be sufficient for our purpose to refer to the one which we are called upon to decide in these group of appeals. That is to be found in paragraph 71 of the judgment of the learned Single Judge. The contention urged was that having regard to the allotment of partnership properties under the award, it was incumbent that the award should have been registered as required by Section 17 (1 of the Registration Act and since it lacked registration, the court had no jurisdiction to make it the rule of the court and grant a decree in terms thereof.;