LINGAM DASARADHARAMAYYA Vs. KANURI RAJA RAO AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Miscellaneous Appeal (No. 231 of 1958) arises out of the judgment and order of the Subordinate 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 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 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 20th July, 1955, Ex. A.I, in his favour. The arbitrator passed an award. Ex. A.2, dated 6th January 1956 after going through the accounts of the partnership and scrutinising the claims of various creditors.

(3.) The petitioner thereupon filed a petition under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act praying to set aside the award given by the 17th respondent in the O. P. It was contended by him that the award was illegal and vitiated as the arbitrator had examined the accounts and did give findings on each of the several questions specifically referred to him for decision. It was also alleged that the arbitrator did decide the share of the partners, the amount advanced by each of them and whether the accounts were genuine or not. Respondents 2, 3 and 16 supported the contention of the petitioner while the 5th respondent i.e., the appellant herein pleaded that the enquiry held by the arbitrator was complete and the award was liable to be set aside. Respondents Nos. 1, 4, 7, 8, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 18 remained ex parte. The learned Subordinate Judge on a consideration of the documents produced before him and the arguments advanced on either side came to the conclusion that the award, Ex. A.2, was invalid and was, therefore, liable to be set aside. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal arises against the said order. He consequently dismissed the suit filed by the 9th respondent to pass a decree in terms of the award, which is the subject-matter of A. S. No. 260 of 1958.