NAGESH VENKATRAO NILKEKENI Vs. MAHABALESHWAR R HEGDE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition under S.115 CPC is primarily concerned with the validity of a consent decree made by the Munsiffs Court under the Arbitration Act, 1940, shortly called 'the Act'.

(2.) From the long chain of facts, I set out only those necessary for my decision. N. V. Nilekani ('the petitioner') and Thomas M. Chacko ('respondent 2') entered into a partnership agreement for running a rice and flour mill at Dharma Colony, North Kanara, under the name and style of 'Sri Umamaheshwar Rice and Flour Mill'. As between the partners, several differences arose relating to the management and conduct of the business of the firm. As per the term of the agreement, the dispute was referred to an Arbitrator. When the Arbitrator was considering the dispute, the partners expressed their desire to get the firm dissolved as per the joint Jahiri produced by them. The Arbitrator on accepting the Jahiri, made a consent Award dissolving the firm with effect from 16th day of March 1974. The Award provided that respondent 2 should become the sole proprietor of the business and owner of the buildings thereon. In return, respondent 2 had to pay Rs.35,000 to the petitioner in two instalments and the petitioner undertook to co-operate for getting the Khata of the Mill and the business licence transferred in the name, of respondent 2.

(3.) On 20th March 1974, the Arbitrator made an application before the Ccurt of the Munsiff at Sirsi producing the Award and praying for a decree in terms thereof. On 23rd March, 1974, the Court registered the said application as an Arbitration Case. The petitioner filed his objection statement, inter alia, contending that the Court has no jurisdiction to pass a decree as per the Award. But later he had a second thought over it. He did not press those objections. On 9th of Deer 1974, Counsel on both sides filed a joint memo before the Court stating that they agreed to the terms and contents of the Award and have no qbjection for the decree being passed in terms thereof. The Court accepted the memo and passed a decree as per the Award. Thereafter, the, terms of the decree are said to have been substantially complied with. The petitioner, however, approached this Court with this revision petition challenging the validity of the decree on the sole ground that the Munsiffs Court has no pecuniary jurisdiction to pass the decree on the Award.