(1.) ON July 17, 1935, the two appellants, four of the five respondents, and one other person who is now represented by his heir, the fifth respondent entered into a deed of partnership. The partnership business was "that of acting as the managing agents and selling agents of the Indore Malwa United Mills Ltd. " and was to be carried on "at Indore or at such other place or places as the partners shall or may from time to time agree upon. " An arbitration clause in the deed provided for the reference of disputes to arbitration "in accordance with and subject to the provisions of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1899, or any statutory modification thereof for the time being in force " So far as appears from the record, the business of the partnership was always carried on at Indore.
(2.) BY the end of 1940 there were disputes between the partners which appear to have become the subject of public controversy, and on December 17, 1940, the seven partners referred their differences to the arbitration of the Prime Minister of Holkar State, Indore. There is nothing in the record to indicate that the arbitrator was asked, or agreed, to act in accordance with any law but that of Indore. On the contrary, the appellants pleaded in the course of the suit which has given rise to this appeal that the arbitration was "governed by the Indore Arbitration Act," and until the hearing at their Lordships' bar all the parties appear to have acquiesced in this view.
(3.) THERE was an appeal to the High Court of Indore, in its appellate jurisdiction which was heard by two Judges, one of whom was the Chief Justice. The Chief Justice was of opinion that there was no right of appeal under the Indore Civil Procedure Code, and was for dismissing the appeal on that ground. The other member of the Court disagreed, and thought that an appeal lay and should be heard. An enactment described as Indore Notification No.34 provides that "when there is a difference of opinion between the two Judges of the High Court constituting the Bench the decision of the lower Court will prevail. " At a subsequent sitting the High Court held that this provision must be applied, and the decision appealed from thus prevailed.