BABU KIRPARAM Vs. JAWAHARSINGH HARNAMDAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition to set aside an award dated March 24, 1930, and made and published by the arbitrators under the rules and by-laws of the East India Cotton Association, Limited, on May 1, 1930. The award directs the firm of Messrs. Nanakchand Prakaschand and Babu Ramrakhmal, Babu Kirparam, the petitioner, Nanakchand and Prakaschand as being partners in the said firm to pay a sum of Rs. 4,822-7-0 with interest thereon at six per cent. per annum from September 26, 1929, till payment and the costs of the arbitration proceedings to the firm of Messrs. Jawaharsing Harnamdas who carry on business in Bombay. I may mention here that in filing an award the arbitrators have to comply with High Court Rule No. 372 which requires that they should file together with the award the evidence on the reference and the minutes of the proceedings and also a copy of the notices given to the parties. This is not done in respect of all the awards made under the by-laws of the East India Cotton Association, and I am not aware of any provision of law under which arbitrations under the by-laws of the East India Cotton Association are to be treated in any way differently from other awards filed in this Court. However, I have made inquiries in the Prothonotary's office, and I have been informed that the arbitrators appointed by the East India Cotton Association do not always take notes of evidence, and in some cases they take short rough notes only which they send to the Prothonotary along with the award.

(2.) The petitioner in this case contends that the award is not binding upon him on the grounds (a) that there was no valid submission to arbitration in writing signed by the petitioner or any one authorised on his behalf, (b) that he had no notice of the arbitration proceedings, (c) that the arbitrators exceeded their jurisdiction in determining who were the partners in the firm of Nanakchand Prakaschand, and (d) that the award as against him at any rate was improperly procured on a false representation that he was a partner in that firm. The petition came up for argument before me in chambers on July 18, 1931, when an order was made adjourning the hearing of the petition in Court.

(3.) It is the case of Messrs. Jawaharsing Harnamdas (whom I shall hereafter refer to as " the respondent firm ") that they carry on business in Bombay as shroffs, bankers, adatias, commission agents and merchants in that name since the year 1927, that before that they carried on the same business in the name and style of Messrs. Dhanpatmal Harnamdas, and that their firm is well-known in various important places in the Punjab. Towards the end of June 1928, their partner Ramdas Bhagwandas went to Bhatinda which is situate in the Native State of Patiala to recover the firm's dues from one Kedarnath who was a broker employed by the branch of Messrs. Ralli Brothers at Bhatinda. Kedarnath introduced the petitioner and Ramrakhamal and the other respondents to Ramdas, and they agreed to do business with the respondent firm in cotton on the printed terms, a copy of which was given to the petitioner and Ramrakhamal. The business according to Ramdas was to be done either in the name and style of Nanakchand Prakaschand or in the name of Fakirchand, as the petitioner is a railway servant in the employ of the North Western Railway, and Ramrakhamal is a broker or rather an agent or sub-agent of Messrs. Ralli Brothers in Bhatinda. According to him business dealings commenced on or about July 9, 1928, and in July 1929 a sum of over Rs. 5,000 was due to his firm. The firm made oral demands in July and in November 1929 and also demands in writing in January and in March 1980. No payment was made to them, and, therefore, the disputes were referred to the arbitration of the East India Cotton Association under one of the printed terms of business. All the notices according to the respondent firm were refused by the petitioner, Thereupon the arbitrators proceeded ex parte, and made their award on March 24, 1930, which was eventually filed on May 1, 1930. The respondent firm got the award transmitted for execution to the District Court at Firozpur in the Punjab, and in execution a moiety of the petitioner's salary was attached from January 1931. The petitioner says that he came to know of this attachment some time in February 1931, and he came down to Bombay and filed this petition on March 3, 1931.