LINGAM DASARADHARAMAYYA Vs. KANURI RAJA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Miscellaneous Appeal (No. 331 of 1958) arises out of the judgment and order of the Sub-ordinate Judge, Masulipatnam dated 17th of April 1958 made in O. P. No. 21 of 1956 on his file while A. S. No. 260 of 1958 is directed against the order of the Court, refusing to pass a decree in terms of the award, made in the suit (O. S. No. 17 of 1956) filed by the 9th respondent in the said O. P. The 5th respondent is the appellant in C. M. A. No. 231 of 1958 while the 9th respondent in the O. P. is the appellant in the other appeal. The parties will be described for the sake of convenience as arrayed in O. P. No. 21 of 1956.

(2.) THE relevant facts may briefly be stated. THE petitioner in O. P. No. 21 of 1956 and respondents Nos. 1 to 9 were running a partnership business under the name and style of Sri Murali Krishna Rice Mill Contractor Company of which R. 1 was the Working Manager. THE Mill was taken on lease by the partnership firm from 5-12-195 (sic) till the end of November 1952. THE petitioner had a four-anna share and subscribed considerably towards the capital. THE 1st respondent as the Working Manager and the 3rd respondent as the General Manager were in-charge for running the business, maintenance of accounts and other acts incidental to the running of the business. After sometime disputes arose between the partners regarding the settlement of accounts and as to whether the partnership ended in loss or profits. THE matter was ultimately referred to an arbitrator, the 17th respondent who is an advocate practising at Masulipatnam and all the parties concerned executed an arbitration agreement dated 20/07/1955, Ex. A.1, in his favour. THE arbitrator passed an award, Ex. A.2, dated 6/01/1956 after going through the accounts of the partnership and scrutinising the-claims of various creditors.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the appellant contends that the lower Court was not justified in setting aside the award merely because the award did not record findings on each and every aspect of the matter that had been referred for determination. According to him as it had finally decided the rights of the parties it should have been accepted notwithstanding the omission on the part of the arbitrator to record a finding on certain aspects. It would be convenient to reproduce the relevant portion of the arbitration agreement at this stage :