Kapur - (1.) THIS judgment will dispose of two appeals F. A. O. Nos. 2 and 3 of 1951 and two Civil Revisions Nos. 187 and 183 of 1951 all arising out of the same order. The appeals are directed against the same order passed in two suits dated the 18th December 1950 in which the learned trial Judge repeated his order for remitting the award and also dismissed the objections which had been filed by the defendants. As there was some doubt as to whether an appeal would lie from this order or not the defendants have filed two revisions also in this Court.
(2.) THE plaintiff had dealings with two firms, firm Subh Karan Das-Churanji Lal and Par-mesh war Lal & Company. THE former deals in forward contracts of gold and the latter of silver. THE partners in the former are Subh Karan Das, Madan Lal, Basheshar Lal, Chu-ranji Lal, Parmeshwar Lal and Ram Lal and in the latter are Basheshar Lal, Parmeshwar Lal, Gulzari Lal and Shiv Karan Das. Both these firms are firms of pucca arhtias. Jai Narain, the plaintiff, filed two suits against the firm Subh Karan Das-Churanji Lal for forward contracts of gold from 19th February 1946, to 19th July 1946, and against Parmeshwar Lal & Company for silver contracts, but it is not clear for what period. Both these suits were for accounts. A preliminary issue was framed as to whether a suit for accounts lay against Pucca Arhtias. On the 18th July 1947, two applications were filed for arbitration which were signed by Basheshar Lal and Jai Narain. By this Dwarka Das was appointed the arbitrator. As he refused to act, Shiv Narain Shankar, an Advocate, was appointed the arbitrator on the 14th May 1948, again by the same two persons Basheshar Lal acting on behalf of the two firms. The award was made on the 28th October 1948, in which a consolidated sum was awarded to the plaintiff against both the defendant firms. Two sets of objections were raised by the defendant firms, or by firm Subh Karan Das-Charanii Lal and ParmeRhwar Lal and Subh Karan Das. That was in the suit against the firm Subh Karan Das Chviranji Lal. In the suit against Firm Parmeshwar Lal & Company objections were also raised and they are on behalf of the firm and Parmeshwar Lal. For both these objections Mr. Tara Chand Brij Mohan Lal was briefed on behalf of the defendant firms and the objecting partners. The learned trial Judge framed two issues : "(1) Whether Basheshar Lal had authority to refer the matter to arbitration and to appoint an arbitrator, and if not what is the effect? (2) Whether the arbitrator misconducted himself or the proceedings?" He held that Basheshar Lal had not the authority of the partner of the two firms to enter into arbitration and that there was no binding custom by which he could enter into arbitration, but the defendants were estopped because their conduct amounted to ratification. He relied on a judgment of Achhru Ram, J. in 'IIANUMAN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE LTD. v. JASSA RAM', AIR 1949 E P 46. He also dismissed the objections of the defendants and affirmed the order remitting the award which had been passed on the 18th of March 1949.
(3.) IT may here be stated that a revision was brought against this order of the 18th of March 1949, but I remanded the case for adjudication of the objections which had been raised. So the result of the order of the Subordinate Judge dated the 18th December 1950, is that the award was remitted to the arbitrator under Section 16(1) (a) and (b) of the Arbitration Act for determining the respective liabilities of the two defendant firms separately. Against this order, two appeals and two revisions have been brought. An objection is taken by the learned counsel for the respondent that no appeal lies against this order. Under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act appeal lies on various grounds. An order setting aside or refusing to set aside an award is appealable under Section 39. The learned Judge has remitted the case, and he has also dismissed the objections. In my opinion an appeal would not lie, but whether an appeal lies or not is not material except as to the question of Letters Patent Appeal, because the appellant has also filed revisions against the order of the Subordinate Judge. I therefore proceed to decide the two revisions.;