Pratibha Bonnerjea, J. - (1.) The petitioner filed this application for setting aside the award dated 10.6 85 on various grounds set out in paragraph 16 of the petition.
(2.) The history of the case will appear from the facts set out below:- The parties were carrying on business in co-partnership under the name and style of M/s. Tools and Bearing Centre and the business used to be carried on from two tenanted rooms, pursuant to a Deed of Partnership dated 16.3.74. The tenancy in respect of Room No. 16 stood in the name of the petitioner Sharma and the tenancy in respect of Room No. 16/3, stood in the name of the partnership firm. This partnership deed contained an arbitration clause. Disputes and difference arose between the two partners which were referred to four arbitrators who made their award on 18.2.75. The parties, however, did not accept the said award and instead agreed to settle the disputes themselves by executing a deed of dissolution dated 6 3.75 whereby the respondent Maheswari retired from the business ion certain terms and conditions and Sharma became entitled to carry on the business of M/s. Tools and Bearing Centre as the sole proprietor thereof.
(3.) Daring the hearing of this application, the counsel for the parties handed over to me copies of the Partnership Deed dated 16.3.74, public notice of dissolution and its corrigendum published in the Amrita Bazar Patrika dated 7.3.76 and 18.9.76 respectively as well as Meswaris letters dated 3.3.76 and 15.11.76 addressed to Sharma and s Sharmas reply to Maheswari through his Advocates M/s. Dube & Co. dated 20.5 76. A copy of the statement of claim filed by Sharma before the alleged arbitrator Bhagwandas on 20.3.76 was also reduced in Court,The existence of these documents as admitted by the parties. Going through the correspondence, I find that Maheswari was asking Sharma to act in accordance with the terms of the deed of dissolution but Sharma was not willing to do so. On the contrary, by his letter dated 20.3.76, written through Dube & Co., Sharma raised certain disputes concerning the terms of the deed of dissolution. By that letter, Sharma alleged that by a subsequent oral agreement between the parties, Maheswari had agreed that Room No. 16/3, which was intended to be transferred to him in his personal name under the deed of dissolution, should not be given effect to and that room should remain in the name of the firm M/s. Tools & Bearing Centre. Sharma demanded that Maheswari should deliver back vacant possession of that room to Sharma in accordance with the subsequent oral agreement. Sharma raised these disputes and., referred the matter to one Bhagwandas as his arbitrator to adjudicate upon the said disputes.;