BALACHANDRAN Vs. PARTHASARATHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant challenges the order passed by the District Judge under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). By the impugned order, the District Judge has rejected the petition filed by the appellant seeking to set aside the Award passed by the Arbitrator.

(2.) By the Award, the Arbitrator directed the appellant to surrender vacant possession of a plot in the Aroor Chemical Industrial Estate to the respondent who was the claimant before the Arbitrator, within one month from the date of the Award. The claim of the respondent, in brief, is as follows : The respondent and the appellant were Partners of a Firm. The plot of land which is directed to be surrendered was originally allotted to one Shri V.A.A. Menon by the Government. He was conducting business in the plot in the name and style "Kerala Pesticides" which was a proprietory concern. Later, the respondent along with Shri V.A.A. Menon and one Govindaraj formed a partnership in 1981. Later, Shri V.A.A. Menon retired. But, the partnership continued under a re-constitution. On 15.1.1987, there was a re- constitution. The said firm was dissolved on 27.2.1987. An extent of 40 cents of land and the building measuring 1850 Sq. Feet was allotted to the respondent and he became absolute owner thereof. On 10.5.1987, another partnership was constituted, the Partners of which were the appellant herein, the respondent, the respondent s son Shri G. Suresh and one Shri G. Sreenivasan. The firm was one at will. The recitals of the partnership deed made it clear that the respondent is the owner of Plot No.15 and he is entitled to obtain vacant possession in the event of dissolution. The respondent and his son retired on 7.12.2002 and the other partner retired with effect from 23.6.2003. By relying on Clause 15 of the partnership deed, the respondent revoked the licence in respect of the plot and demanded vacant possession. This is followed by a lawyer s notice and ultimately in view of the response of the appellant, the respondent invoked the arbitration clause. It was accordingly that the Arbitrator came to be appointed. It is this claim which is accepted and allowed by the Arbitrator.

(3.) We heard Shri K. Ramakumar, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant and also the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent. Learned senior counsel for the appellant would contend that the award is unsustainable. He would contend that the Arbitrator has proceeded to decide the dispute and on the said basis, pass an award in respect of a matter which is not covered by the arbitration clause. He would hence submit that the award is illegal and it ought to have been set aside by the court below. He also relied on the decisions of the Apex Court in Security Printing and Minting Corporation of India Limited and Another v. Gandhi Industrial Corporation, 2007 13 SCC 236), ONGC Limited v. Garware Shipping Corporation Limited, 2007 13 SCC 434and Addanki Narayanappa And Another v. Bhaskara Krishnappa (dead) and thereafter his heirs and Others, 1966 AIR(SC) 1300. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent would contend that the impugned order is not liable to be overturned. He would reiterate the facts. He would submit that the award is in accordance with Clause 15 of the Partnership Deed.