DURGA PROSAD CHAMARIA Vs. SEWAKISHENDAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The purpose of this appeal is to secure the setting aside of an interim award made on January 9, 1941, by Sir Manmatha Nath Mukherjee, sitting as sole arbitrator appointed by agreement of the parties to a partnership suit. An application by appellant No. 1 to set aside, remit or modify the award was dismissed by the High Court at Calcutta on March 7, 19-11, and on March 10, 1941, the same Court made a decree that the award should be carried into effect. An appeal was taken to the High Court in its appellate jurisdiction, and on May 28, 1946, that appeal was dismissed. It is from the judgment and orders made on that appeal that the present appeal reaches this Board.

(2.) It is necessary to make some reference to the facts that led up to the arbitration in order to appreciate what it is of which the appellants complain. The arbitration concerned the affairs of a partnership business known as Hurdutroy Chamaria or Hurdutroy Chamaria & Co. The business seems to have been originally in the sole hands of Hurdutroy Chamaria, but at any rate by October 6, 1910, he had made a written agreement associating with him as a partner his nephew Ramprotap. Hurdutroy married three times, his third wife being Anardeyi Sethani, whose legal personal representative is respondent No. 1, in this appeal. By her he had two sons, Radhakissen Chamaria, respondent No. 8, and Motilal Chamaria, respondent No. 4. The appellant Durga Prosad was an adopted son of Hurdutroy, the adoption having been effected during the period of Hurdutroy's lirst marriage. The appellant Keshardeo Chamaria is by birth a son of Durga Prosadbut became the adopted son of Araolakchand, Ramprotap's brother, by an adoption effected after Amolakchand's death by his widow Surji, respondent No. 5.

(3.) The crucial year for the purpose of this narrative is the year 1916. On December 2 of that year Hurdutroy died. It is apparent from what has been said previously that the interesting Hurdutroy Chamaria& Co. was divided between his branch of the family and the branch represented by Ramprotap. It is also apparent that there were possibilities of diputes in his own family owing to the presence of an adopted elder son and two younger sons by his third marriage.