K.P.SINGH, J. - (1.) NECESSARY facts involved in the present litigation are as follows: Shri Sanjay Singh and Smt. Krishna Kumari filed an application under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act against Shri Abhay Singh and Smt. Indu Bala in the Court of Civil Judge, Dehradun. The aforesaid application was decided by Shri Virendra Singh, 2nd Additional Civil Judge, Dehradun, through his judgment dated 10-3-1986. Against the judgment dated 10-3-86, Abhay Singh and another preferred an appeal numbered as 267 of 1986 in this court. It appears that the parties did not agree to the appointment of arbitrator as indicated in the order dated 103-1986. The court appointed Shri Jitendra Kumar. Advocate, Dehradun, as arbitrator through his order dated 4-4-1986. Against the order dated 4-4-1986 Shri Abhai Singh filed an appeal in this court which was numbered as 381 of 1986. The aforesaid appeal was allowed in part by a bench of this court on 17-12-1986. Per direction of this court Mr. Justice J. M.L. Sinha (Retd.) was appointed as arbitrator in place of aforesaid Shri Jitendra Kumar, Advocate, Dehradun. Parties to the present litigation appeared before the Arbitrator appointed by this court and the learned Arbitrator has given an Award dealing with the claims of the parties. The aforesaid Arbitrator has filed the Award in this court. Shri Sanjay Singh and another have prayed for making the Award a rule of the Court whereas Shri Abhay Singh and others have challenged that portion of the Award whereby they have been restrained from taking instructions from and rendering accounts to any individual or body of individuals except the partnership Firm which goes by the name of Col. Browns Cambridge School and they have also been injuncted from permitting N. S. Educational Society to run the School and make use of the movable or immovable properties of the Partnership Firm.
(2.) THE parties in the present litigation are the partners of the Firm known by the name of Col. Browns Cambridge School. Col. Browns Cambridge School was run by the Firm. It appears that the State Government as well as the council of Anglo Indian Schools threatened the Firm to disaffiliate the School if the School was not run by a society registered under the Societies Registration Act. THE parties in the present litigation agreed to the need of formation of a society but they fell out on the question of the constituents of the Society. According to Sanjay Singh and another the constituents of the Society were such that they could not have their say at any point, therefore, they made a different proposal which was not acceptable to Abhay Singh and others and the latter got a society registered under the name of N.S. Educational Society on 23-2-1978 and Abhay Singh and others(defendants in the objection under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act) passed on the management of the School and its properties to the Society without consent of Sanjay Singh and another (Plaintiffs in the application under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act). Thus the difference arose between the parties leading to the present litigation. Shri Sudhir Chandra Agarwal, a senior advocate of this Court, has challenged the Award on behalf of Abhay Singh and another on the following grounds : According to the learned counsel, the learned Arbitrator has committed an error on the face of the record in granting relief of injunction to Sanjay Singh and another in the facts and circumstances of the present case. According to the learned counsel, injunction against Abhay Singh and others could not be granted in law as well as on the findings recorded by the learned Arbitrator himself. Second ground raised on behalf of the objector to the Award is that the learned Arbitrator has recorded contradictory findings, therefore, that part of the Award is bad whereby injunction has been issued against Abhay Singh and others. Third ground of attack against the Award is that the action of Abhay Singh in handing over managment to the Society was fully protected by the provisions of Section 21 of the Indian Partnership Act. Fourth ground attacking the Award is that the Award does not settle the dispute between the parties and the parties are relegated to another litigation, therefore, the Award issuing an injunction against the objectors is bad in law. Fifth attack upon the Award is on the ground that the learned Arbitrator has omitted to consider material evidence stressed by the learned counsel for the objectors, therefore, the Award suffers from an error on the face of the record and deserves to be set aside qua the relief of injunction granted to the plaintiffs in the application under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act.
(3.) SHRI S.S. Bhatnagar, a senior advocate of this court, has supported the Award and has tried to refute the contentions raised on behalf of the objectors. According to him the Award does not suffer from any error of law on the face of the record. The Arbitrator has not recorded any inconsistent findings as suggested by the learned counsel for the objectors to the Award. Therefore, the Award is good in law and it should be made a rule, of the Court. It has also been submitted by the learned counsel that if this court differs from the views expressed by the learned Arbitrator, it would be no ground for interfering with the Award which has been given by the Arbitrator chosen by the parties to the litigation.;