JUDGMENT - Chagla, C.J.

1. This appeal arises out of a judgment and decree passed by Mr. Justice Shah. In order to understand the nature of the litigation few facts may be staled. One Purshottamdas Jhaverchand died in 1932 leaving three sons Jetha-lal. Chunilal and Mulchand. Purshottamdas was doing two businesses in the name of "Popatlal Mulchand." One was a yarn business and the other was a cloth business which was started in 1932. On 2-9-1938, a partnership agreement was entered into between Chunilal, Mulchand and the sons of Jethalal who had died in 1937 and the effect of the partnership agreement was that the business of Fopatlal Mulchand (Yarn) was to be carried on by the three branches represented by the three sons of Purshottamdas. With regard, to the cloth business an outsider was also interested and in respect of this business a partnership agreement was entered into on 4-11-1942, and that partnership agreement also dealt with the shares and the rights of the three branches represented by the three sons of Purshottamdas. Two new businesses were started in October 1940. One was the business of Natverlal Chunilal which was a yarn business and the other was the business of Rasiklal Chhotalal which was a cloth business. Rasiklal was the name of the son of Chhotalal who was the son of Chunilal. In 1943 a writing was executed with regard to these new businesses and that agreement provided that the profit that may remain over after deduction of income-tax witn regard to these two businesses should be equally divided amongst the three branches represented by the three sons of Purshottamdas.

There were disputes between the three branches with regard to the various businesses and these disputes were referred to arbitration on 28-12-1947. The reference to arbitration expressly stated that the award would be governed by the Indian Arbitration Act. Under this agreement four arbitrators were appointed. On 7-2-1943, the arbitrators gave their award and really the award was in two parts. The first part dealt with the business of Popatlal Mulchand (Yarn) and Popatlal Mulchand, the cloth business. The other part dealt with the two new businesses which had been started in 1940 and with regard to the business of Natverlal Chunilal, the award provided that it was agreed between Natverlal Chunilal and Mulchand Purshottamdas and Narottamdas Jethalal that the same shall bo divided and shared in equal shares by the three. This referred to the profits and less found on examining the accounts of Natverlal Chunilal for the Samvat years 2002, 2003 and part of 2004 ending with 31-1-1948. It further provided that the monies coming to the shares of Narottamdas Jethalal and Mulchand Purshottamdas were to be received or paid in cash. The reference was made to Narottamdas Jethalal, the son of Jethalal, and Mulchand Purshottamdas, the son of Purshottamdas Jhaverchand, because it is common ground that this firm of Natverlal Chunilal was being managed by Chunilal, the second son of Purshottamdas Jhaverchand. The award further provided that Narottamdas Jethalal and his brothers and Mulchand Purshottamdas and his family had no concern whatsoever with any business or works carried on hereafter, i.e. from the date 1-2-1948, in the name of Natverlal Chunilal, but Natverlal Chunilal had agreed to pay to the three, in accordance with the item three (above), the profits made from his current quota as long as the said quota continued. The award also provided that Narottamdas Jethalal was bound to pay the amount in cash in respect of his one-third share and Mulchand Purshottamdas and the members of his family were bound to pay the amount in cash in respect of their one-third share with regard to income-tax paid by Natverlal Chunilal in connection with dealings prior to the date 31-1-1943. A similar provision was made with regard to the business carried on in the name of Rasiklal Chhotalal.

The plaintiff in the suit from which this appeal arises represents the bra

Click Here to Read the rest of this document