MAHESHCHANDRA MORARJI JANI Vs. S M SHUKLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these revision applications under Sec. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure a neat question of jurisdiction of Court of Civil Judge (J. D.) Devgadh-Baria in connection with the proceedings under Secs. 14 and 30 of the Arbitration Act 1940 arises for consideration. In order to appreciate this question in its proper perspective a few introductory facts are required to be noted.

(2.) A partnership firm in the name of Ramanlal Maheshchandra and Company was carrying on business at village Piplod of Baria Taluka of Panchmahals District. The petitioners on the one hand and respondents Nos. 2 to C on the other were partners in the said partnership firm. Certain disputes arose in connection with partnership business and in view of the arbitration clause in the partnership deed these disputes were referred to arbitration of respondent No. 1 herein who is common respondent in both these revision applications. Disputes were referred by respondents Nos. 2 and 3. Written terms of Reference a copy of which was furnished to me showed that respondents Nos. 2 and 3 requested the first respondent to arbitrate in the matter and to resolve the disputes. In clause 4 of the said terms of reference it was provided that partners are not in a position to carry on partnership business and therefore a declaration was required to be given that partnership is dissolved after deciding the liabilities of the concerned partners as per their shares and after taking accounts of profit and loss and other inter se dues. In clause 6 of the terms of reference it has been provided that proper accounts have to be taken of the partnership business and profit and loss had to be ascertained upto date and shares of the concerned partners have to be ascertained both in profit and losses. That the Arbitrator had also to fix the date from which the partnership will be treated to have been dissolved. In the light of these terms of Reference the first respondent entered upon arbitration and heard the parties. Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 filed their claim statement and as for the claim statement they submitted that they would be entitled to Rs. 61 546 from the remaining partners. Terms of reference wore prepared in February 1980 and the statement of claim given by respondents Nos. 2 and 3 before the Arbitrator was dated 26-6-1980. After the arbitrator declared his award he filed the same in the Court of the Civil Judge (J. D.) Devgadh-Baria under Sec. 14 of the Arbitration Act. The contesting partners filed their written objections under Sec. 30 of the Arbitration Act raising various objections to the award. It is at that stage that objection as to jurisdiction of the trial Court in connection with the proceedings under Sec. 14 as well as Sec. 30 of the Arbitration Act was raised. As these objection covered all the proceedings viz. Sec. 14 as well as Sec. 30 applications filed by different objectors they were all consolidated and the question of jurisdiction was decided by the learned trial Judge after hearing the concerned parties. The learned trial Judge has taken the view that the Court of the Civil Judge (J.D.) had ample jurisdiction to entertain and try Civil Miscellaneous Applications under Secs. 14 and 30 of the Arbitration Act. It is this common judgment of the trial Court that has been brought in challenge by the contesting parties by way of these two revision applications. As these revision applications raise common point of jurisdiction based on common facts they were hear together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(3.) In order to appreciate the question about jurisdiction of the Court to entertain these proceedings under the Arbitration Act it is necessary to look at Sec. 14 of the Arbitration Act: