AMIR SINGH JAIN Vs. BIMLA DEVI JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AMIR Singh Jain filed a suit against Smt. Bimla Devi jain, his daughter-in-law and Surinder KumarJain his grand son, for dissolution of partnership and rendition of accounts. It was stated in the plaint that on 29th May, 1969, AMIR Singh Jain and Bimla Devi Jain entered into an agreement of partnership whereby AMIR Singh Jain took Bimla Devi Jain as his partner in the business being carried on under the name and style of "M/s. Mahavir Atta Bhandar" on the terms and conditions mentioned therein. It was further averred that the partnership deed was executed by him on the repeated requests of his son Attar Sain jain, the husband of Bimla Devi Jain. The case of the plaintiff was that this was done by Attar Sain Jain in order to fraudulently and wrongfully usurp and misappropriate for himself and the defendants large amounts of money out of the said business. By another agreement dated 1.4.1972 Surender Kumar Jain was also admitted as a partner in the running business. The defendant No.2 misconducted himself in the affairs and management of the business. On many occasions he took out various amounts out of the partnership funds. On or about 30.10.1974, the plaintiff met with a serious accident as a result whereof he sustained grave injuries and remained admitted in the Willingdon Hospital, and thereafter confined to bed for several months. After he recovered from illness, he visited the house and the shop in the month of April ,1975 and found that the tenanted premises had been broken open and were occupied by the defendants. All his apparels, articles and substantial portion of goods and stock in trade were found missing. The defendants put up their own lock on the shop.The defendants illegally and fraudulently excluded the plaintiff from the partnership business and its affairs. The defendants had grossly misconducted themselves in the affairs of management of the partnership business and fraudulently and illegally excluded the plaintiff therefrom. The plaintiff by letter dated 27th September, 1976 dissolved the partnership, which was at will, as from 27th September, 1976 and called upon the defendants to render true and complete accounts of the partnership business. In these premises, prayer was made to pass an order and declare that the partnership business stood dissolved as from 27th September, 1976 and a direction was sought against the defendants to render accounts.

(2.) BEFORE any written statement could be filed, the parties agreed that Mr, M.L. Jain, Advocate may be appointed as a sole Arbitrator to decide the dispute between the parties. By order dated 16th September, 1981, this court appointed Shri M.L.Jain, Advocate as the sole Arbitrator to decide the dispute forming subject matter of the suit.

(3.) THE next objection to the award is that the learned arbitrator misconducted the proceedings by holding that there was no proof that the plaintiff had left goods worth Rs.50,000.00 in the shop at the time when he suffered fracture in his leg. This objection relates to the merits of the award and cannot be dealt with under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act.