Sankar Saran, J. - (1.) THIS is a revision against an order by the Civil Judge of Kanpur reversing the decree of the trial Court and remanding the case to the Court below for ordering an award to be filed and for making it the rule of the Court.
(2.) THE plaintiff-applicant Jai Dayal Pearey Lal and the defendant opposite party Chunni Lal Parsotam Das are two firms, members of the Kanpur Sugar Merchants' Association here-after to be referred to as the Association. THEre was a dispute between the parties and according to the rules and bye-laws of the Association it was referred to arbitration. On 7th May 1941 one Ram Sahai was appointed the sole arbitrator by the parties and he accepted that office. Earn Sahai could not, however, finish the work of arbitration. On 2nd September 1943, the firm Chunni Lal Parsotam Das nominated one Charan Das as its arbitrator. On 3rd September 1943, the Secretary of the Association sent a notice to the applicant firm Jai Dayal Pearey Lal that Charan Das was appointed the sole arbitrator. THE applicant protested against Charan Das being appointed the sole arbitrator. THEreupon, on 9th September 1943 the Secretary of Association gave three days' time to the applicant to nominate another arbitrator. On 5th January 1944, the applicant protested telegraphically saying that Charan Das could not act as an arbitrator and that the arbitrator was Ram Sahai. THE applicant followed up this protest by applying under Section 33, Arbitration Act praying the Court to stay proceedings. Subsequently, there appears to have been a compromise between the parties and the applicant was allowed to appoint an arbitrator. On 12th April 1944, the applicant firm appointed one Man Singh as its arbitrator. According to the rules of the Association only a nominee of a firm which was on the list of members of the Association could be appointed an arbitrator. On 20th April 1944, the Secretary of the Association informed the applicant that Man Singh could not act as an arbitrator because the firm which he represented had withdrawn his name. In the circumstances the Secretary of the Association asked the applicant to appoint another arbitrator. Upon this, the applicant protested saying that Man Singh was still competent to function as an arbitrator. On 16th May 1944, the Secretary of the Association appointed Charan Das, who was the nominee of the defendant opposite party, as the sole arbitrator.
(3.) ON 26th May 1944, Charan Das gave his award ex parte. ON 22nd August 1944, Charan Das made an application to the Court under Section 14. Arbitration Act, praying that a decree be passed in terms of his award. As has been mentioned above, this prayer of Charan Das was not accepted by the trial Court which set aside the award and the lower appellate Court reversed the decree of the first Court and ordered that the award be made a rule of the Court.;