SHAMBHUNATH GOENKA Vs. MADAN MOHAN GHUWALEWALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SHAMBHUNATH Goenka and Madan Mohan were carrying on business as partners under the name and style of Sugar Trading Company at Muzaffarnagar. The partnership was started sometime in the end of 1952 and was dissolved voluntarily on 12-10-1953. On 3-10-1956 SHAMBHUNATH filed a suit for rendition of accounts and the Commercial Sub-Judge Delhi granted him a preliminary decree on 13-8-1957. The local commissioner appointed by the Court went into the accounts and reported that a sum of Rs. 42,536-9-9 was due to the plaintiff. The defendant took up cudgels against this report and it was set aside on 11-2-1966 on the request of the parties and the case was left to be decided by the Court. The suit was transferred to the High Court in 1969 and on 28-1-1971 the parties agreed to the reference of their dispute to Shri Cyan Singh Vohra, Advocate, as an arbitrator. Later on the appointment of Shri Vohra was revoked and Shri S. B. Capoor, a retired Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, was appointed as a referee. Shri S. B. Capoor, however, expressed his inability to fulfill the assignment and he came to be replaced by Shri S. C. Manchanda, Shri S. C. Manchanda by Shri Rameshwar Dial and Shri Rameshwar Dial by Shri C. G. Suri, 6 another retired Judge of Punjab and Haryana High Court. The last mentioned referee, Shri Suri, disposed of the matter on 24-3-1975 and awarded a sum of Rs. 27.860.00 with interest at 5 per cent per annum to the defendant. SHAMBHUNATH preferred objections to the award on 23-4-1975 and contended that Shri Suri did not act as a referee because instead of making a statement according to his knowledge fit belief he chose to give a decision in the form of an award; that his decision was contrary to law and without jurisdiction, that he did not take into. consideration the parties' agreement that the liabilities and outstandings settled and received would also be accounted for in the balance-sheet, that all the disputes referred to him were not decided, that the referee made a non-speaking order giving no reasons for his award, that his decision suffered from an apparent error and that he was guilty of legal misconduct. The objector's pleas were controverted by the plaintiff and hence the following issues arose :-

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and have perused documentary as well as oral evidence adduced in the case. I will now take up the issues one after the other for discussion and decision. ISSUE NO. 1(A),(D).(E) AND (F)

(3.) THAT Shri Suri's award in the matter of interest is not entirely in accordance with law is conceded even by the defendant's counsel. Vide section 29 of the Arbitration Act where the award is for the payment of money the Court may in the decree order interest from the date of the decree at such rate as the Court deems reasonable to be paid on the principal sum as adjudged by the award and confirmed by the decree. It is not within the competence of the arbitrator to allow interest after the date of the decree. The plaintiff's counsel has not supported Shri Suri's decision again as to interest being payable by the plaintiff on the amount of interest and costs from the date of the decision to the date of the realisation as ordered in the award. To the aforesaid extent the award shall have to be modified.