KANHAIYA LAL DUBEY Vs. AWINASH TALWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Kanhaiya Lal Dubey. the defendant-appellant and Smt. Awinash Talwar. the plaintiff res-pondent, carried on business in partner ship. On disputes having arisen, they in October, 1962, executed an agreement referring their disputes to the arbitra tion of Sri Bhusharan Sharma. Accord ing to the plaintiff's case, the arbitrator entered on the reference and conducted the proceedings from 15th October to 22nd December. 1962. On 23rd Decem ber 1962. the arbitrator pronounced the award. It was signed by the arbitra tor as well as by both the parties to the disputes. The arbitrator gave a copy of the award to each party. The award was that Kanhaiya Lal Dubey. the ap pellant, should pay Rs.28,000.00 to the plainttiff- respondent in instalments. The first instalment was of Rs.7,000.00 pay able immediately. On this amount being paid, the appellant was entitled to the possession of the shop where the partner ship business had till then been carried on. The same day, namely on 23/12/1962, the appellant paid Rs.7.000 to the respondent, and the respondent gave possession of the shop to the appellant. The appellant, how ever, refused to pay the subsequent instalments. On 16/1/1963. the plaintiff filed an application in court under Sec. 14 (2), Arbitration Act. Thereupon, the appellant filed objections denying that the arbitrator had conduct ed any proceedings or pronounced an award. On being called upon by the Court, the arbitrator also filed a written statement. Therein, he denied having conducted any arbitration proceedings or made an award. He alleged that the plaintiff's husband had brought certain type-written papers and he just signed them. On 19/10/1963, the plain tiff- respondent filed a copy of the award along with an application praying that decree be passed on the basis of that copy.

(2.) The court below held that the arbitrator had. in fact, entered on the re ference, conducted the proceedings and had pronounced the award on 23/12/1962, a copy whereof was the one filed by the plaintiff It held that the application under Sec. 14 (2) was maintainable and a decree could validly be passed on the basis of the copy of the award filed by the plaintiff. Aggrieved, the defendant, Kanhaiya Lal Dubey hag come to this court in appeal. He has as sailed the findings of fact. It was also urged on behalf of the appellant that the arbitrator not having filed the award and not having authorised the parties to file or cause to be filed the award or Its copy, the application under S. 14 (2) was not competent.

(3.) It is admitted between the par ties that they carried on business in partnership that certain disputes arose whereupon they executed an agreement referring them to the arbitration of Sri Sharma. On behalf of the plaintiff, her husband, R. K. Talwar appeared in the witness box along with one Rajendra Nath (P. W. 2). He stated that Shri Sharma had conducted the proceedings in the presence of both the parties. He looked into the accounts as well, and then gave his award on 23/12/1962. He, after signing the award, asked both the parties to sign it. Thereafter each of the two parties stated on the award that they accept the award and then they again signed it. The same procedure was adopted in relation to the two copies given to the parties. In terms of the award. Kanhaiya Lal Dubey appellant, paid to the plaintiff Rs.7.000 and ob tained possession of the shop from her. The witness proved the receipt (Ext. 3) which was given by Kanhaiya Lal for having obtained possession of the shop and the goods kept in it. He was sub jected to a cross-examination but with out success.