BALDEY JAGIDISHWARAYYA Vs. KOTAGIRI TEJALINGAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a civil miscellaneous appeal filed against the order of the Sadar -Adalat, Sacunderabad, dated 20th March 1950 by which upon a question of law put by the arbitrator, the Court held that, having regard to the terms of reference, the arbitrator was competent to decide the differences between the plaintiff Kotagiri Tejalingam and the defendants Dagoy Vitoba and the rest. The facts alleged are that Tejalingam applied to the Court on 9th shehrewar 1350 P (9th July 1917) that the agreement of reference to arbitrator dated 7th February 1026 may be filed in Court. The Court after notice to show cause, filed the said agreement and made an order of reference to the arbitrator, Mr. N.B. Ohenoi, who acted as arbitrator for sometime and then on his declining to continue further, appointed Mr. Purushotham as arbitrator with the consent of the parties. It was Mr. Purushotham who mooted the question to the Court. He stated that the agreement of reference was between three partners on one side and two on the other; that two partners of the first group having died, defendants 2 to 6 have been brought on record as their legal representatives; and that he, as arbitrator, is being requested to decide disputes inter se between the partners of the first group also; that the question therefore is whether he has jurisdiction to do that under he terms of his reference. The Court below hold by the order under appeal that he had the jurisdiction. The arguments before us also centred round this question. The learned advocate for the appellants has made two points, viz. that (1) reference to arbitration was between two groups only and therefore under the terms of reference disputes inter se between members of one group only are outside the ambit of reference; and secondly that (2) this question mooted to the Court itself was contrary to the provisions of Section 550, Hyderabad Civil P.C. corresponding to Para,. 11, Schedule 2, Indian Civil P.C. To this the learned advocate for the respondent has replied that quite clearly disputes inter se were also contemplated by the terms of reference to arbitration and that the question put by the arbitrator was perfectly valid in law. We have thus to decide these two questions. We will begin with the interpretation of the terms of reference.

(2.) THE agreement, of reference after reciting in the preamble that 'disputes' and differences having arisen between (1) Soma Veeranna, (2) Baldey Ramanna, and (3) Kotagiri Tejalingam of the one part and (4) Dagey Vittoba and (5) Dagey Ambaji of the other part in reference to the firm of Soma Rajiah Baldey Ramanna states that

(3.) APPEAL dismissed with costs.