BADARLA RAMAKRISHNAMMA Vs. VATTIKONDA LAKSHMIBAYAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three C. M. As. 3/53, 349/56 and 351/56 are against the orders of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Masulipatnam, dated 7-10-1952 in I. A. No. 105 of 1951 in O. S. No. 25 of 1948, I. A. No. 103 of 1951 in O. S. No. 11 of 1948 and I. A. No. 106 of 1951 in O. S. No. 29 of 1948 respectively. The plaintiff in O. S. No. 11 of 1948 (sic) a creditor and that in O. S. Nos. 25 and 29 of 1948 is another creditor of a partnership firm called Sri Sitarama Rice Mill Contractors Company, Avanigadda.

(2.) So far as I. A. No. 104 of 1951 in O. S. No. 23 of 1948 was concerned, he held that the arbitrators had misconducted the proceedings and were also guilty of misconduct in giving the award and consequently set aside the award. With respect to this order C. M. A. No. 350 of 1956 was filed. As we have already observed we are only concerned with the C. M. As. arising out of the orders in I. A. Nos. 105, 103 and 106 of 1951 in O. S. Nos. 25, 11 and 29 of 1948 respectively.

(3.) Before us the learned advocate for the appellants Sri P. Somasundaram, apart from requesting us to take into consideration the fact that the arbitrators have been found guilty of misconduct in I. A. No. 104 of 1951 in O. S. No. 23 of 1948 in determining these three O. M. As.; has urged the following four points against the validity of the awards viz.; (1) that the orders passed by the Subordinate Judge in all the three I. As. were not in accordance with Cl. (1) of S. 23. of the Indian Arbitration Act (hereinafter called the Act) or with the second part of the said clause thereof; (2) that notice of the making and signing of the award by the arbitrators was not given to the parties as required by Cl. (1) of S. 14 of the Act which vitiates the awards; (3) that the Court did not extend the time after 11-10-1950 but only posted the matter to be called on 12-12-1950 and from 12-12-1950 to 13-12-1950; (4) that the arbitrators did not take part in the making of the award; and (5) that the statements given by one party were not put to the other party and were accepted without giving such an opportunity. We shall now proceed to deal with the above points seriatim.