CHARANJIT KOCHHAR Vs. DELHI ELECTRIC SUPPLY UNDERTAKING

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -

(2.) THIS petition has been filed on behalf of M/s.Charanjit Kochar (hereinafter referred to as the Contractor) under Section14 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and ithas been prayed in this petition that the respondents 2 and 3 who were theco-arbitrators in this case be directed to file original award alongwith arbitration proceedings in this Court and thereafter the matter may be proceededwithin accordance with law. After the award and proceedings were filed,notice of filing of the award was issued to the parties. Thereafter objectionswere filed by the Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking (hereinafter referred toas DESU) vide 1. A. 2456/89. The objections have been controverted by theContractor in their reply to the said I.A. The following issues wereframed:

(3.) AS regards the objections of the respondent-DESU that thearbitrators have exceeded their jurisdiction in permitting the survivingpartners of the contractors-firm to represent the case, I do not find any forceeven in this objection. In the proceedings dated 24/02/1989, Clause18 of the partnership deed has been reproduced. From this clause it is clearthat in the case of death of one of the partners, the surviving partner was totake the business and he was entitled to succeed to share of the deceasedpartner in the capital and assets of partnership and the death of a partnershall not dissolve the partnership as to the others. In view of Clause 18 ofthe partnership deed and Section 42 of the Partnership Act, the arbitratorswere justified to allow the surviving partner to represent the contractors-firmin the proceedings. Again I do not find any merit in the objection of therespondent No. 1 that the proceedings. Again I do not find any merit in theobjection of the respondent No. 1 that the proceedings were not conductedbefore both the arbitrators on many dates of hearing. In fact the learnedCounsel for the objector could not point out any proceedings which were notconducted before both the arbitrator.