( 1 ) THIS appeal arises from an application for setting aside an award. The 2nd additional District Judge, Jabalpur, allowed the objections and set aside the award. The appellants are aggrieved by that decision.

( 2 ) THE parties constituted a partnership firm for supply of material to the Army. The firm existed from March, 1943 to June 1945. Certain disputes arose between the parties. On 14 April, 1047, the parties entered into an agreement to refer their disputes to arbitration. Shri S. C. Upadhaya and Shri N. M. Golvalkar, Advocates were appointed arbitrators by the parties. On the same date, the parties made an application under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act in the Court of the Additional district Judge, Jabalpur, for making a reference to the said arbitrators for decision on the disputes referred to in the agreement. A reference was accordingly made.

( 3 ) THE arbitrators gave their award on 31st August, 1956. In the result they held that Kashi-prasad (respondent) was liable to pay Rs. 33,025 to the appellants. On 1st October, 1956, Kashi-prasad prayed for setting aside the award on the ground of legal misconduct and errors patent on the face of the record. This is an appeal from the decision of the Additional District Judge, dated 28th April, 1961. ( 4 ) WE have carefully gone through the award. The learned arbitrators first found out what business the partnership did. Secondly, they found that the accounts of the partnership upto 30th June, 1944 had been finally settled between the parties. Thirdly, they found that after 30th June, 1944, Kashiprasad carried on the business single-handed. Fourthly, they found that the net profits of the partnership on 30th June, 1944 were Rs. 4,402. Fifthly, they found that the accounts subsequent to 30th June, 1944 were to be explained by Kashiprasad, but the accounts produced by Kashiprasad were not reliable, and they were rejected. Likewise, the accounts (Exs. X and Y) in connection with the onion business were also held unreliable. Sixthly, in the absence of reliable accounts the arbitrators decided to calculate profits on percentage basis. They adopted the basis as was adopted by the income-tax authorities. They calculated the profits accordingly and found that the appellants share in the profits was Rs. 20,025 and their 3/4th share in the amount of Rs. 44,000, which was the profit upto 30th June, 1944, came to rs. 33,000. Thus, the total amount of profits representing the 3/4th share of the appellants was Rs. 53,025. Deducting Rs. 20,000 already paid by Kashiprasad, the net amount which remained payable by Kashiprasad to the appellants was Rs. 33,025.

( 5 ) THE trial Court has found that the delay in giving the award did not amount to misconduct; that the omission to frame issues did not vitiate the award; that there was no need to appoint an umpire; that the Jairam Nagar undertaking belonged to the partnership; that rejection of the account books (Exs. X and Y) was not misconduct; and that both the arbitrators were present on 15th March, 1952 when certain evidence was recorded. However, it gave the following findings against the appellants: (1) Refusal on the part of the arbitrators to examine accounts prior to 30th June, 1944 was omission to exercise jurisdiction and, therefore, amounted to misconduct. (2) The arbitrators had no authority to calculate profits on percentage basis. (3) The arbitrators did not discuss the disputed items of payments alleged by Kashiprasad. 4. The arbitrators ignored the admission of Moolchand regarding repayment of Rs. 25,000 by Kashiprasad to the firm. (5) No finding was given regarding discharge of liabilities by Kashiprasad, as alleged by him. (6) Oral evidence and vouchers regarding onion business were not considered by the arbitrators. (7) The arbitrators did not start with the basis that on 1st July, 1944, Rs. 51,000 was the profit belonging to the firm (as per Ex. A-9 ). (8) The arbitrators did not make accounts on the basi