KAMAL PUSHP ENTERPRISES Vs. D R CONSTRUCTION CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition raises an important question of law with respect to the applicability of Section 69(3) of the Indian Partnership Act to the proceedings which arise out of a filing of an Award by the Arbitrator. Admittedly there was a contract with the petitioner by Gas Authority of IndiaLimited, Vijaypur, Tahsil Raghogarh, District Guna (hereinafter referred to as GAILS) for horticulture work. After this agreement with the GAIL the petitioner entered into an agreement with the respondent for carrying out the said work of horticulture in GAIL. A dispute had arisen between the petitioner, on one hand, and the respondent, on the other, and the matter was referred to sole arbitrator Shri Padam Kumar Jain, Advocate, Guna, with the consent of both the parties. The Arbitrator after recording necessary evidence and hearing parties passed an Award on 6-12-93 and submitted it on 2-2-94 before the District Judge, Guna, for making the Award rule of the Court. Notices u/S. 14(2) of Arbitration Act were issued by the District Judge whereupon an objection was filed by the petitioner with respect to the maintainability of the Award on 28-4-94. He also challenged the legality of the Award raising a legal objection that it was not maintainable in view of the provisions of S.69 of the Partnership Act. The learned District Judge framed a preliminary issue in this regard and after hearing the parties held that provisions of S.69(3) of the Act were not applicable on the proceedings which arise from the filing of the Award.

(2.) The contention raised before me by the learned Counsel for the revisionist is that proceedings relating to enforcement of an Award are covered within the meaning of S.69(3) of the Partnership Act. A lengthy and laboured argument has been made by the learned Counsel for the revisionist. He also made reference to the history of Partnership Act and placed reliance upon several authorities and an article written by former Chief Justice of Delhi High Court, Justice V.S. Deshpande published in (1991) 2 Arbi LR 13 which shall be dealt with henceforth.

(3.) On the other hand, it has been contended that S. 69 has no application to a case where an Award has been filed suo motu by the Arbitrator because irrespective of the fact whether an application for making the Award rule of the Court is made or not if the Court comes to the conclusion that there is no cause to remit the Award or set aside, the Award, the Court shall, after the time for making an application to set aside the Award has expired and in case the said application is made, after refusing it, proceed to pronounce judgment in accordance with the award u/S. 17 of the Arbitration Act. It cannot be said to be a proceeding for enforcement of a right arising out of a contract as provided u/ S, 69-.