MERCY JULIET Vs. V J ANTONY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the above appeals and the cross objection arise out of a common judgment of the District Court, Ernakulam in OP (Arb) Nos.1020/2011 & 1021/2011. The original petitions were filed before the District Court seeking to set aside the award passed by the sole arbitrator, dated 14-07- 2011, in AR No.22/2001. The appellant in both the appeals was the petitioner in OP (Arb) No.1020/2011 and respondent in OP (Arb) No.1021/2011. The respondent in both the appeals, who is the cross objector in C.O. No.165/2015 was the respondent in OP (Arb) No.1020/2011 and petitioner in OP (Arb) No.1021/2011. The parties are referred hereunder in this judgment as the appellant and the respondent, respectively.

(2.) A brief description about the dispute involved is that, the parties were partners of a firm named Biju & Co. and the respondent retired from the partnership by virtue of Ext.P12 (a) reconstitution deed executed between them on 31-03-2000. The husband of the appellant and her son were inducted as new partners of the firm and the business was continued. There were some other sister concerns of the partnership, which firms were also reconstituted on 31-03- 2000. There arose a dispute between the parties regarding the settlement of accounts of the firms, alleged misappropriation of the assets of the firms by the respondent and also with respect to partition of the assets of the firm between the parties. The appellant filed a petition before this court seeking appointment of an arbitrator to resolve the disputes, and Justice K.A. Nair (retired Judge of this court) was appointed through an order passed by this court on 09-01-200 The sole arbitrator had passed an award dated 25-03-2008, which was subjected to challenge in the original petitions filed by both parties before the District Court. On dismissal of those original petitions the parties came up before this court in appeals filed as Arb. Appeal Nos.4/2010 & 10/2010. It was contended before this court by both the parties that the reliance placed by the arbitrator on a family settlement, which was marked as Ext.X1 & X2 was totally illegal and unsustainable. Both the parties have expressed the view that they have no objection in setting aside the award and in appointing another arbitrator to adjudicate the matter afresh. Accordingly, through a common judgment passed by this court in Arb. Appeal No.4/2010 & 10/2010, dated 7th April 2010 a new arbitrator was appointed (Adv. K. Ramachandran) . This court made it clear that the arbitrator will be at liberty to appoint Chartered Accountant or qualified Auditor to look into accounts of the firm. A time limit was stipulated to the arbitrator to pass a fresh award.

(3.) The appellant filed the original petition before the District Court being aggrieved mainly by the rejection of her claim with respect to the alleged misappropriation.