BIMLA RANI AGGARWAL Vs. SAMPAT RAI SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is directed against the order of the Subordinate Judge, First Class, Chandigarh, dated September 3, 1983, whereby after setting aside the award, the matter was again referred to the arbitrator.

(2.) In this petition, the petitioner Shrimati Bimla Rani Aggarwal, has challenged the impugned order of reference after setting aside the award. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, once the award dated June 23, 1981, was set aside by the Court, then there was no question of making a fresh reference and that the Court had no jurisdiction to do so. In support of the contention, the learned counsel relied upon the Union of India v. Om Parkash, 1976 AIR(SC) 1745The learned counsel also contended that after the award was given on June 23, 1981, the partnership between the parties was dissolved by notice dated July 14, 1981. Bimla Rani Aggarwal, the petitioner, filed the suit for the rendition of the accounts on July 24, 1981. In the said suit, an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter called the Act), was moved on behalf of the defendants which was dismissed by the trial Court vide order dated November 28, 1981, Exhibit O.13. Appeal against the said order was dismissed in limine by this Court. Thus, argued the learned counsel, under the circumstances, there was no question of making any fresh reference to the arbitrator. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents contended that though in the impugned order, the matter is stated to have been referred to the arbitrator, but virtually, it is an order of remittance as contemplated under Section 16 of the Act. According to the learned counsel, the impugned order is covered under clauses (b) and (c) of Section 16 of the Act, and, therefore, it be treated as an order of remittance for passing which the Court has ample powers under the said provisions. The learned counsel also faintly contended that the award has been wrongly set aside and that the order to that effect was wrong and illegal.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the relevant record.