BAWA BIR SINGH Vs. BAWA MAHARAJ SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against the order of the lower Court making an arbitration award a rule of the Court and passing a decree according to its terms.

(2.) THE history of the litigation between the parties is long and complicated. As briefly as I can relate it the history runs as follows. A joint family business was carried on by a firm styled Bawa Parduman Singh and Sons by the sons ot Parduman Singh, Maharaj Singh and Gurmukh Singh and their sons. Gurmukh Singh retired from the business at the end of 1949 and thereafter the business was turned into a partnership, the partners being Maharaj Singh, his two sons Satya Pal Singh and Randhir Singh and four sons of Gurmukh Singh, namely, Bir Singh, Harbhajan Singh Yoginder Singh and Kulwant Singh, the share of Maharaj Singh being one-fourth and the share of the rest one-eighth each.

(3.) WHILE this matter was feeing decided one of the present appellants, Harbhajan Singh, either becoming tired of the delay in connection with the filing of the award or thinking that more was to be gained in this way, instituted a suit at Amritsar, which is one of the places where the business of the firm was carried on, on the 7th of January, 1958, for dissolution of partnership and rendition of accounts. In this plaint he mentioned the facts regarding the reference to arbitration and the proceedings pending in the Court at Delhi under Section 14 of the Act but he stated that in Spite of repeated requests the defendants had not taken any steps to pay or contribute towards the stamp duty and penalty and consequently, as the present respondents were contending in the arbitration proceedings the award remained inadmissible and ineffective and the relations of the parties as partners still continued. The suit was contested only by Maharaj Singh and Satya Pal Singh, the other defendants supporting the plaintiff, and on the application of the plaintiff a receiver was appointed as regards the firm's business at Delhi, and applications filed by the contesting defendants for stay of the proceedings on the basis of the provisions of Sections 10 and 11, Code of Civil Procedure and Section 32 of the Act were dismissed.