Limited grounds for annulment of arbitral awards and the need to refrain from appreciating or re-appreciating matters on facts as well as on law.

ORDER :

Nisha M. Thakore, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 7.2.2017 passed by the learned 7th Additional District Judge, Vadodara in Civil Miscellaneous Application No.96 of 2015 under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), whereby, learned Additional District Judge has dismissed the application filed by the present appellant under Section 34 of the Act challenging the preliminary award passed by the learned Arbitral Tribunal (Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice C.K. Thakker, Retired) dated 30.11.2013.

2. The case of the appellant in short as reproduced in the memo of appeal is summarized as under:

2.1. The father of the present appellant viz. Shri Pravinchandra Shah and father of the respondent no.1 late Shri Vasantlal and mother of respondent no.2 late Smt. Chandrakantaben were real brothers and sister. The parties are thus first cousins.

2.2. In the year 1981, the aforesaid parties have started with a partnership firm in the name of Unik Industries wherein originally four partners were engaged viz. (1) Shri Kiritkumar C Shah (Respondent no.2) (2) Shri Chetanbhai V. Shah, (3) Shri Atulbhai P. Shah (Appellant) and (4) Shri Pareshkumar V. Shah (Respondent no.1). Subsequently, one of the partner viz. Shri Chetanbhai Shah who was the cousin of the present appellant and the respondent, chose to retire as a partner and had left the partnership firm w.e.f. 30.11.1994 leaving the partnership firm to be continued by three partners having equal share and rights in the business. For which a fresh partnership deed came to be executed between the appellant and respondents on 16.2.1995.

2.3. The aforesaid partnership firm was engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling of machinery spares and other engineering products and the factory premises was located at 893/2, GIDC, Makarpura, Vadodara. It is the case of the appellant that though three partners were there, however the affairs and management of the firm was mainly looked after solely by the present appellant.

2.4. It is contended by the appellant that the additional structure was raised behind the existing factory premises, which was given on rent initially to M/s. Castex Industries, which was in fact run and managed by father of the respondent no.1. The said additional structure was subsequently vacated way back in the year 1996-97 and the rent amount was cleared till period for which was used by the said firm.

2.5. Thereafter, the said portion of the property was handed over to M/s. Ganesh Computer Forms Pvt. Ltd way back in the year 1998-99 on rental basis and the rental amount was paid by the said firm regularly through cheque in the name of partnership firm. It is contended by the appellant that the regular books of account were maintained. It is further contended that separate electricity connection has also been availed by the said firm and sale tax registration under the SSI under said address of the rented premises has been obtained by the said firm.

2.6. The dispute seems to have started in the year 2007 as contended by the appellant when the respondent no.1 on one or the other pretext inspite of receipt of his share from the partnership firm started harassing the appellant. It is contended by the appellant that initially unsecured loans and financial assistance availed towards security of the house of firm. The appellant claims to have cleared such outstanding loans from the banks pursuant to the efforts of him and by the end of financial year 2006-07 all the outstanding dues were cleared and the partnership firm was free of it’s liability. However, with a mala fide and ulterior motive the respondent started to harass the appellant with an intention to secure more money from the partnership firm. It is contended by the appellant that all through these years respondent no.1had settled in Mumbai and respondent no.2 was based in USA.

2.7. On 17.3.2008 the respondent no.1 by letter addres