HEM LATA GOEL Vs. URMILA GOEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal challenges the judgment of the learned Single Judge in ia No. 3188 and 6230/1998 in CS (OS) No. 1762a/1990 and Execution Petition no. 108/1999 titled as Ms. Urmila Goel v. Ms. Hemlata Goel and Ors. dated 20th November, 2008 by which the objections preferred by the appellants against the arbitration av/ard were rejected and the award was made executable by the court. The facts of the case briefly stated are as follows :-

(2.) ON the basis of the above findings, the learned Single Judge upheld the findings of the learned Arbitrator that not only the claim of goodwill could be raised as it was not objected to, but it was also found that the deriving of the partnership business by the appellants new Firm was solely on account of prior dealerships of the partnership firm in question. It was, thus, concluded that this was sufficient evidence of the goodwill which accrued to the benefit of the appellant and was, thus, liable to be apportioned between the parties: '

(3.) IN support of his plea that the goodwill could not be a subject matter of the present dispute, or that it could not be valuated in the manner done by the learned arbitrator, the learned counsel for the appellant, Sh. Ravi gupta, has cited a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ramnik Vallabhdas Madhvani and Others v. Taraben Pravinlal madhvani, (2004) 1 Supreme Court Cases 497 and in particular paragraph 68, which reads as follows: -