ATUL RAMRAO KOTHARE Vs. UPENDRA K MAJITHIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition, the petitioner challenges the award passed by the Sole Arbitrator. The first submission that is advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the premises from which the business of the firm was being carried on has been wrongly held to be an asset of the firm. Perusal of the award however, shows that the Arbitrator has given detailed reasons for recording a finding that the premises from where the business of the firm was conducted is an asset of the firm. The Arbitrator has drawn certain inferences from the conduct of the petitioner before the Arbitrator.

(2.) IT was next submitted that the Arbitrator has ignored the liability of the bank against the firm. Relying on a judgment of this Court in the case of (Chandrabhan Rupchand Dakhale and others v. Birdichand Lalchand Navlakha and others), reported in 1983 Mh. L. J. 1043, it was submitted that in view of the provisions of section 48 of the Partnership Act, the liability of the firm has to be taken into consideration. So far as this aspect of the matter is concerned, it is clear that so far as the liability of the bank is concerned, it has been paid out. If according to the respondent, from the accounts of the firm in that suit, the petitioner has substituted himself as the plaintiff and therefore in view of the provisions of section 48, as that liability cannot be said to be liability to a third party, the Arbitrator has rightly dealt with that aspect of the matter. It is further to be seen that the respondent is defendant in the suit which is filed by the petitioner for recovery of the amount and if the respondent is found to be liable, a decree can be obtained in that suit by the plaintiff. The learned Counsel then argued that the claims which have been found against the petitioner by the Arbitrator do not tally with the balance-sheet. The jurisdiction of this Court to interfere with an award is extremely limited. The Supreme Court in its judgment in the case of (State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ram Nath International Construction (P) Ltd.), reported in 1996 (1) S. C. C. 18, has categorically laid it down that the Court can interfere with an award on the ground set out in section 30 of the Arbitration Act, the Court cannot reappreciate the evidence to examine the correctness of the conclusions reached by the Arbitrator. In my opinion, considering the limited jurisdiction of this Court, the award cannot be interfered with. Petition is therefore rejected.