SHORI LAL Vs. SARDARI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal must be allowed on the short ground that the Court below has not understood the law on the subject.

(2.) A partnership deed was executed between three persons, Thakar Das, Shori Lal and Sardari Lal, to carry on the business of textile manufacturers and cloth merchants under the name and style of Dhawan Textile Mills. In the partnership deed, Clause No. 20 is to the following effect:-

(3.) MR. Manchanda, learned counsel for the respondents, has relied on dwarkaprasad v. Dip-chand Parsram, 44 Ind Cas 360 : (AIR 1918 Sind 21), James finlay and Co. , Ltd. v. Gurdayal Pahlajraj, 76 Ind Cas 660 : (AIR 1924 Sind 91), ram Chand Gurdasmal v. Gobindram Gurdasmal, AIR 1927 Sind 124 (sic) and smt. Dulari Devi v. Rajendra Prakash, AIR 1959 All 711. None of these decisions has any applicability to the facts of the present case. In all these cases there was a reference to an arbitrator, which reference was souht to be revoked and it was held that in view of the provisions of section 5 of the Act, the reference could not be revoked without the leave of the Court. These decisions do not, in any way, come in conflict with the contention of the teamed counsel for the appellant that the provisions of section 5 have no applicability to an arbitration agreement. That like any other contract can be substituted, revoked or varied. The present is a case where the contract has been varied. Not a single case has been cited where the substitution or variation of an arbitration agreement was held to be illegal.