( 1 ) THE appellants are aggrieved by the impugned order dated 21. 8. 90 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing their application filed under section 32 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 in the suit filed by the respondents for dissolution of the partnership firm, M/s. National refrigeration Works and for rendition of accounts.

( 2 ) THERE is prior history of disputes between the parties relating to the said partnership firm of M/s. National Refrigeration Works. The parties are closely related as appellant no. 1 and respondent no. 1 are brothers while appellants 2 and 3 are the sons of appellant no. 1 and respondent no. 2 is the son of respondent no. 1. The partnership is stated to have been constituted vide partnership deed dated 26. 6. 1975 but disputes arose between the partners in the year 1978 resulting in a document dated 18. 4. 1978 described as Power of Attorney but in terms whereof by mutual consent the disputes were REFERRED TO for adjudication to the arbitration of Sh. Arjan Singh and Sh. Umrao Singh.

( 3 ) THE factual matrix has been set out by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order. An interim award was given on 18. 4. 1978 followed by further awards on 19th and 20/04/1978. The lis between the parties arises because of two rival contentions- the appellants contend that the said awards were acted upon and no disputes survived while on the other hand the respondents contend that the appellants did not implement the awards and certain disputes still remained undecided.

( 4 ) ANOTHER aspect which is relevant is that the respondents had earlier instituted a suit for dissolution of the partnership and rendition of accounts in this court being suit no. 1169/1979 in which proceedings also the appellants had filed an application under section 32 of the arbitration Act, 1940 but ultimately by agreement the disputes were REFERRED TO to the same arbitrators who had adjudicated upon the disputes earlier and consequently the said suit was withdrawn on 7. 5. 1980 with liberty to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action, if need be. The respondents filed the present suit from which these proceedings have arisen alleging that there has been no progress in the reference made to the Arbitrators as per order dated 7. 5. 1980 and the arbitrators were unable to settle the pending issues or implement the pending matters as intimated by the said arbitrators.

( 5 ) THE application filed by the appellants under section 32 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 in the present proceedings has been contested by the respondents where the rivals contentions have been advanced as a consequence of the order dated 7. 5. 1980 in suit no. 1169/79 and the subsequent developments. The respondents have stated that in view of the failure of the arbitrators to decide the matter in controversy, and as a result of the liberty granted to file a fresh suit at the stage of withdrawal of suit No. 1169/1979 on 7. 5. 1980, the respondents were entitled to maintain the present suit. The appellants have resisted the suit in view of the writing dated 31. 3. 1983 alleged to be between the partners of the firm to the effect that all disputes inter se the parties had been settled in terms of the awards passed by the arbitrators earlier and nothing survived to be adjudicated upon. It was thus stated that nothing remain to be decided in view of the final award of the arbitrators.

( 6 ) THE learned Single Judge has considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellants propounding the proposition of law that even if an award is not made a rule of the court, the same is binding upon the parties and has recorded that there is no doubt about this legal proposition. We may note that in the submissions advanced before us no dispute has been raised about the said legal proposition.

( 7 ) THE learned Single Judge rightly noted the controversy between the parties as one which relates to the adjudication of the fact whether all the disputes inter s