MAYA DEVI Vs. NIRMAL CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The anguish of the Supreme Court articulated in Guru Nanak Foundation v. Rattan Singh and Sons, AIR 1981 SC 2075, is as true today as it was so many years ago. D.A. Desai, J. said that:

(2.) The present case is yet one more such example. The partnership deed between the parties contained an Arbitration Clause yet it required the petitioner to file a petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, being Suit No. 1048/ 1994, before arbitral proceedings could be agreed to be undertaken, vide orders dated 17.5.1995. The Arbitrator could enter upon the Reference only on 25.7.1997. A perusal of the proceedings before the Arbitrator will disclose that there were as many as thirty seven (37) hearings and approximately twenty (20) adjournments were taken by the respondent/objector for one reason or the other.

(3.) The Arbitrator has published an Award which contains the reasons which prevailed on him for making it. It is well-settled that the Arbitrator is the master of facts, and that while adjudicating upon Objections to the Award, the Court would not reappraise the evidence, unless the conclusions arrived at are wholly perverse. On the basis of the evidence the Arbitrator has concluded that a person called 'Uncleji' had invested Rs. 2,26,000/- in the business as against Rs. 1,76,000/- by the respondent. Keeping in perspective that a portion of the subject investment had been made by the husband of the petitioner by cheque and disbelieving the version of the respondent that it had been contributed by different persons, the Arbitrator has arrived at a conclusion in favour of the petitioner. This conclusion is neither fanciful nor perverse and thus cannot be interfered with even if the Court were to prefer another view, which I most certainly do not. The Arbitrator infact observed that the plea regarding the persona of 'Uncleji' had been put forward only at the stage of evidence, and was clearly an afterthought. Inspite of finding that the amount of investment was Rs. 2.26.000/- the Arbitrator has only awarded Rs. 2,20,000 /- since it was the latter amount that was mentioned in the notice. No profits on the partnership venture have been granted. The argument of learned Counsel for the respondent that there was no basis for awarding Rs. 2,20,000/- is palpably frivolous and incorrect.