AUREL DSOUZA Vs. ARUN DSOUZA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for respondent No.1.

(2.) This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and decree dtd. 20/3/2014, passed in A.S.No.3/2011, on the file of the I Additional District Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangalore.

(3.) The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that according to the claimant before the arbitrator, there was a partnership firm i.e., Seabird Enterprises and the said partnership came into existence for fishing activities by using the boat which has been purchased in the year 1994 on cost of Rs.5,80,000.00 and investment is 50% each. The learned counsel would submit that the purchase as well as partnership deed is disputed by the appellant and contend that there is no such partnership deed and the same was registered in individual capacity. The learned counsel submits that nothing is placed on record before the arbitrator for proving of partnership and no books of accounts are maintained and also no office at all and nothing is placed before the arbitrator as well as before the Court below while considering A.S.No.3/2011. The learned counsel submits that the appellant has produced the document to show that it was in his individual capacity and not partnership. Inspite of the documents are placed on record, the same has been disbelieved by the arbitrator. The Trial Court also failed to take note that the arbitral award is in conflict with Public Policy of India. The reasonings and conclusion of the arbitrator were not in accordance with the evidence and the probabilities. The very admission given by the claimant is also not considered by the arbitrator with regard to the payment is concerned. The documents of Exs.R.6 and 3 i.e., registration certificate and policy and identity card issued by the Deputy Director of Fisheries at Ex.R.1, are not considered by the arbitrator and committed an error in passing such an award and the Trial Court also erroneously confirmed the same and hence it requires interference of this Court.