JURINATH SAHU Vs. RAMABALLAVA BRAHMA AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Plaintiff, opposite party No. 1 in this revision, filed T.S. No. 136/75 in the trial Court for rendition of accounts of the partnership firm of which the Plaintiff and the Defendants were partners, and for dissolution of the said partnership firm. After the Defendants filed their written statement in the suit, both the parties agreed to refer their disputes to the Arbitrator, and on their joint petition to that effect the Court referred the disputes between the parties, which were the subject matter of the suit, to Sri Bhimsen Bisoi to arbitrate the said disputes. The arbitrator signed the award on 24 -1 -1975 and filed the same in the Court on 25 -1 -1975. Both the parties filed their respective objections to the said award. We are not concerned with the objection filed by the Plaintiff against the award.

(2.) THE objection filed by the Defendants is under Section 30 read with Section 35 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). They challenge the award mainly on the ground that there was no notice to Defendant No. 1 about the making of the award or the date fixed for its pronouncement; the arbitrator violated the principles of natural justice as he did not afford any opportunity to the Defendants to cross -examine the Plaintiff and all his witnesses in this case; the arbitrator misconducted himself by misleading the Defendants by giving different dates in the notices served on them; the arbitrator did not maintain true and correct record of the proceedings; the arbitrator proceeded to give his award without giving adequate opportunity to the Defendants to have their say in the matter; he exceeded the terms of reference as be allowed his personal knowledge to influence his decision in the matter; he received oral and documentary evidence tram the Plaintiff behind the back of the Defendants and proceeded to give his award without supplying a copy of their evidence to the Defendants or allowing the Defendants to have their say on those evidence; and that the award of the arbitrator suffers from bias and partisan attitude against the Defendants.

(3.) I will at first take up the allegation of the Defendants that the arbitrator recorded the statement of the Plaintiff and examined three of his witnesses behind the back of the Defendants, and did not even supply copies of their statements to the Defendants enabling the latter an opportunity to meet the effect of the same.