FIRM GULZARIMAL GHEESALAL Vs. FIRM RAMESHCHANDRA RADHYESHYAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by the defendant firm Gulzarimal Gbeesalal against the judgment and decree of the Civil Judge, Kishengarh, in a suit for recovery of damages.

(2.) THE suit out of which this appeal arises was brought by the plaintiff firm ramchandra Radheshyam on the allegations that it did business as commission agent at Madanganj, and that the defendant was a joint Hindu family firm, of which Gheesalal was the manager, and that the said firm did business in the name of Gulzarimal Gheesalal at Nasirabad. It is admitted that there were dealings between these two firms. It is unnecessary to give particulars of the dealings between the parties in any detail, because the only dispute between them, so far as the present litigation is concerned, centers round the transaction relating to purchase and sale of 200 maimds of Gur. The case of the plaintiff was that it had purchased for the defendant 200 maunds of Gur on 29-1-1949, for a sum of Rs. 3350/- at the rate of Rs. 16/12/-per maund and sold the same for the defendant later as a result of which it suffered a loss of Rs. 1600/ -. Certain other incidental charges were also claimed amounting to Rs. 38/10/6 and allowance was made for the money which the defendant firm had to its credit with the plaintiff, and thus the plaintiff filed the present suit for Rs. 1083/14/3. The plaintiff also mentioned in paragraph four of the plaint that both parties had referred their dispute with respect to the transaction in question to certain arbitrators and that the said arbitrators had decided by their award (Ex. 1) dated 11-7-1951, that the defendant should settle this transaction at the rate of Rs. 18/instead of Rs. 16/12/- as claimed by the plaintiff, or, in other words, the transaction was decided to be settled by paying Rs. 180/- less than what the plaintiff had claimed. The plaintiff further mentioned in paragraph 111 of the plaint that it had called upon the defendant to comply with the award of the Panchas but the latter replied that the Panchas had neither given any notice to it to appear before them, nor had they given it any opportunity to lead evidence, and, consequently, the said award was not acceptable to it. The plaintiff, therefore, claimed a decree for Rs. 1083/14/3 on the basis of the original dealing between the parties, and, alternatively, it also claimed a decree in accordance with the award of the Panchas referred to above.

(3.) IT seems to me that even before the Arbitration Act of 1940 was brought into force in this country, the general consensus of judicial opinion was that a valid award operates to merge and extinguish all claims embraced therein and once such an award has been made, the submission and the award furnish the only basis by which the rights of the parties can be determined and they constitute a bar to any independent action on the original cause of action.