Y RANGANATHAN Vs. P L N GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) :-

(2.) THIS appeal arises out of the order passed by K. Shanmukham, J. in Appln. No. 2648 of 1982. In Appln. No. 3902 of 1976, the appellants herein prayed for the appointment of a sole Arbitrator to decide the dispute between the parties relating to the taking of the accounts of the dissolved firm Yelchur and Co., situated at No. 2. Ramakrishna St., Madras 1, and at Madhanapalli. N. S. Ramaswami J. appointed Mr. M. Shamdas, who is a retired District Judge and now practising as Advocate, Madras, as Arbitrator on 24-2-1977 to decide the dispute between the parties relating to the taking of accounts of the dissolved firm 'Yelchur and Co.' with a direction that the Arbitrator while passing the award shall take into consideration as to whether the mediator gave any finding and whether that finding had been accepted by both the parties or not. The Arbitrator, after taking up the proceedings, passed his first order on 12-11-1979 on the direction petition (be) filed by the appellants on 26-11-1978. In and by this application, the appellants sought for the production of five items including the day book and ledger for the years 1972-73, 1975-76 and 1976-77. The Arbitrator directed the respondents herein to produce all the account books called for in the application. The appellants filed another application seeking for the production of the very same documents which they have prayed for in their first application dated 10-8-1977. In this application, the Arbitrator passed the following order on 23-2-1982 :

(3.) MR. S. V. K. S. Rangaswami lyengar, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, contended that under S.31(3) read with S.41 of the Arbitration Act, the Court has power to give such a direction, that unless such a direction is given, the Arbitrator will not have any material to decide the case, that the respondents are wilfully suppressing those documents, lest they will reveal the true state of affairs, which will not be in favour of the respondents and that directions have to be given by this Court to produce those documents, the noncompliance of which can be construed as contempt of Court.