ANIL NARENDRA Vs. VIRENDRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AT the conclusion of the hearing I announced my judgement. I dismissed the objections under Section 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act filed against the award dated November 3, 1969. and made the award a rule of the court. I now proceed to give ray reasons.

(2.) THIS is an unfortunate litigation between two brothers and their sons Mahashaya Krishan was the founder of a well known newspaper Daily Pratap. His two sons K. Narendra and Virendra continued the business of that newspaper after his death. Anil Narendra is the son of K. Narendra. Lalit Moban is the son of Virendra.

(3.) IN the objections the award has been attacked on a variety of grounds. Firstly it is said that the reference to the arbitrator was illegal as a suit was pending at the time when the parties executed the agreement of reference on August 31, 1968. Second it was alleged that the agreement is couched in terms far too wide and it confers arbitrary powers on the arbitrator which are against the principles of natural justice. Third it was said that the arbitrator was guilty of misconduct as he decided the matter in the absence of the objectors. Fourth it was said that though the objectors specifically challenged the accounts, yet the arbitrator did not summon the account books from the opposite parties and did not go through the accounts. It was said that the arbitrator was labouring under a misapprehension about the accounts of Jullundur office. Lastly, it was said that the award was illegal as it was made beyond time.