VALLABHDAS NARANDAS AND CO Vs. KESHAVLAL HIMATLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a chamber summons adjourned into Court, taken out by the applicants against the respondent for an order that the applicants be at liberty to execute an award dated May 9, 1924, filed in this Court on June 11, 1924, against the respondent as a partner in the firm of Keshavlal Himatlal. On the argument of the summons in chambers the respondent contended that the award was against an individual and not against a firm. In the alternative he contended that if the award can be construed as being against a firm he was not a partner in the firm and therefore not liable to be proceeded against in execution of the award against the firm. On those contentions I adjourned the summons into Court and ordered the trial of the following issues, viz., (1). Whether the award herein is against the firm of Shet Keshavlal Himatlal ? and (2). If so, whether the respondent is a partner in the said firm ?

(2.) The arbitration proceedings which led to the award seem to have been held under the rules and regulations of the East India Cotton Association. The award is signed by one Bhaidas Nanalal, umpire. In filing the award the umpire failed to conform to the rules of this High Court which require that the arbitrators or the umpire shall send together with the award the evidence on the references, the minutes and proceedings and also a copy of the notice given to the parties. The only document filed along with the award is a press typed copy of a notice on which the names Shet Keshavlal Himatlal, Esq. and Chunilal Himatlal Esq. and the date 5 seem to have been subsequently handwritten in blue ink. Mr. Wadia, on behalf of the applicants, asked for leave to call a clerk of the East India Cotton Association to produce the minutes of proceedings of the reference before the arbitrators and the umpire. I declined to accede to his request as no provision of the law is pointed out to me whereby arbitrations under the rules of the East India Cotton Association are to be treated differently from awards filed in this Court. In my opinion, the East India Cotton Association and their umpire have been guilty of an irregularity in filing an award without conforming to the rules of the High Court in that behalf.

(3.) It is clear from the copy notice filed with the award that the notice of the filing of the award was not served on the respondent. The first occasion for the respondent to impugn the award is on the present summons. He is not debarred, in my opinion, by any conduct of his from contending that the award is illegal and cannot be executed against him on the allegations made. There is no force in the applicants contention that the respondent should have objected to the filing of the award or to have applied by a summons to have it set aside after it was filed.