Back
1993 Supreme(MP) 156
1994 JLJ 131
D.M. Dharmadhikari and R.P. Awasthy, JJ.
Govind Prasad Agarwal v. Shri Bhurelalji Agarwal and others.
Misc. Appeal No. 295 of 1990; against the order passed by Shri S.C. Dubey,
Second Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Hoshangabad in Civil
Suit No. 2-A of 1989; Decided on 16.2.1993.
N.S. Kale for appellant; Ravish Agarwal for respondents.
Headnote:(1) Arbitration Act, 1940 -- S.2 (a) -- "arbitration agreement" -- award of arbitrators signed by all parties -- may be treated as an "arbitration agreement" --future disputes can be agreed to be referred to arbitrators. (1988) 3 SCC 21 followed. [Para 24
(2) Arbitration Act, 1940 -- S. 2 (a) -- "arbitration agreement" -- should be in writing by the parties thereto -- writing may be by the counsel of the parties -- form has not been prescribed and there is no bar for reference of future disputes. Russel on Arbitration page 49 relied on. [Para 26
(3) Arbitration Act, 1940 -- Ss. 14 and 2 (a) -- arbitrators may pass subsequent award if parties have agreed -- no question of their being becoming functus officio arises after passing the first one. AIR 1939 Cat. 739, AIR 1930 Lah. 425, (1988) 3 SCC 21 relied on. AIR 1987 J and K 21, AIR 1960 Pat. 201 and AIR 1973 Mys. 17 distinguished. [Paras 28, 29 and 31
(4) Arbitration Act, 1940 -- Ss. 4 and 2 (a) --parties signing award containing arbitration agreement -- arbitrators duly named therein -- appointment of arbitrators is by the parties. AIR 1974 Ker. 51 distinguished. [Para 30
(5) Arbitration Act, 1940 -- S.2 (e) -- one of the parties causing hindrances in partnership business -- it cannot be said that there was no referable or identifiable dispute to be referred to arbitrators. AIR 1971 Ker. 51 and AIR 1979 Delhi 64 distinguished. [Para 33
(6) Arbitration Act, 1940 -- S. 14 -- one party to the agreement not estopped to challenge the jurisdiction of arbitrators -- still arbitrators having jurisdiction to pass award -- award is justified. 1973 JLJ 695 distinguished. [Para 34
(7) Arbitration Act, 1940 -- S. 30 -- writing of order sheets not necessary -present parties heard and absented party contacted on phone -- arbitrators not misconducted -- it cannot be said that evidence was taken on back of any party. AIR 1953 SC 21 distinguished. [Para 36
(8) Arbitration Act, 1940 -- S. 13 -- arbitration proceedings -- arbitrator is not bound by the rules of procedure or evidence -- he has to only follow the fundamental principles of natural justice. 1979 JLJ 223 relied on. 1974 JLJ 334 distinguished. [Para 38
(9) Arbitration Act, 1940 -- Ss. 14, 13 and 30 -- findings given on rival contentions -- award an outcome of documentary evidence adduced by parties -- award is not misconducted. AIR 1955 SC 468 distinguished. [Para 40
(10) Arbitration Act, 1940 -- S. 39 -- appeal under -- appellate Court does not re-examine and r-e-apprise evidence considered by the arbitrators. AIR 1971 SC 1646 and AIR 1987 SC 81 followed. [Para 41
(11) Arbitration Act, 1940 -- Ss.2 (a) and 2 (e) -- written "arbitration agreement" -- reference may be unilateral also. AIR 1985 SC 1003 followed. [Para 44
(12) Arbitration Act, 1940 -- S.14 --partnership firm -- one partner causing hindrances in day to day business -- his power to withdraw amount from bank rightly withdrawn without affecting his share of profit. AIR 1982 Delhi 131 relied on. [Para 43
¼1½ ek/;LFke~ vf/kfu;e] 1940 & /kkjk 2 ¼d½ & ^^ek/;LFke~ djkj** & e/;LFkksa dh iapkV lc i{kdkjksa }kjk gLrk{kfjr & ^^ek/;LFke~ djkj** ekuk tk ldrk gS & Hkkoh fookn e/;LFkksa dks funsZf‘kr djus ds fy, djkj fd;k tk ldrk gSA ¼1988½ 3 ,l lh lh 21 vuqlfjrA ¿iSjk 24
¼2½ ek/;LFke~ vf/kfu;e] 1940 & /kkjk 2 ¼d½ & ^^ek/;LFke~ djkj** & mlds Ik{kdkjksa }kjk fy[kk gqvk gksuk pkfg, & Ik{kdkjksa ds dkmUlsyksa }kjk fy[kk tk ldrk gS & ç:Ik fofgr ugha fd;k x;k gS vkSj Hkkoh fookn funsZf‘kr djus dk otZu ugha gSaA ek/;LFke~ ds fo"k; esa jlsy] Ik`"B 49 voyafcrA ¿iSjk 26
¼3½ ek/;LFke~ vf/kfu;e] 1940 & /kkjk 14 rFkk 2 ¼d½ & e/;LFkx.k vuqorhZ iapkV ikfjr dj ldrs gSa ;fn Ik{kdkjksa dk djkj gqvk gks & igyh iapkV ikfjr djus ds Ik‘pkr muds indk;Z fuo`Ùk gksus dk ç‘u mn~Hkwr ugha gksrkA , vkb vkj 1987 tEew rFkk d‘ehj 21] , vkb vkj 1960 iVuk 201 rFkk , vkb vkj 1973 eSlwj 17 çHksfnrA ¿iSjk 28] 29 rFkk 31
¼4½ ek/;LFke~ vf/kfu;e] 1940 & /kkjk 4 rFkk 2 ¼d½ & Ik{kdkjksa }kjk iapkV ij gLrk{kj ftlesa ek/;LFke~ djkj varfoZ"V Fkk & mlesa ^^e/;LFk lE;d~ :Ik ls ukfer & e/;LFkksa dh fu;qfDr Ik{kdkjksa }kjk gSA , vkb vkj 1974 dsjy 51 çHksfnrA ¿iSjk 30
¼5½ ek/;LFke~ vf/kfu;e] 1940 & /kkjk 3 ¼´½ & Ik{kdkjksa esa ls ,d }kjk Hkkxhnkjh dkjckj esa çfrck/kk,¡ & ;g ugha dgk tk ldrk fd e/;LFkksa dks funsZ‘k djus ds fy, funsZ‘k ;ksX; vFkok vfHkKs; fookn ugha FkkA , vkb vkj 1971 dsjy 51 rFkk , vkb vkj 1979 fnYyh 64 çHksfnrA ¿iSjk 33
¼6½ ek/;LFke~ vf/kfu;e] 1940 & /kkjk 14 & djkj dk ,d Ik{kdkj e/;LFkksa dh vf/kdkfjrk ij vk{ksi djus ls focaf/kr ugha & rFkkfi e/;LFkksa dks iapkV ikfjr djus dh vf/kdkfjrk gksxh & iapkV U;k;kuqer gSA 1973 ts ,y ts 695 çHksfnrA ¿iSjk 34
¼7½ ek/;LFke~ vf/kfu;e] 1940 & /kkjk 30 & vkns‘k Ik=d fy[kk tkuk vko‘;d ugha & mifLFkr Ik{kdkjksa dks lquk rFkk vuqifLFkr Ik{kdkjksa ls nwjHkk"k ij laidZ fd;k & e/;LFkksa us vopkj ugha fd;k & ;g ugha dgk tk ldrk fd lk{; fdlh Ik{kdkj ds ihB&ihNs fy;k x;kA , vkb vkj 1953 ,l lh 21 çHksfnrA ¿iSjk 36
¼8½ ek/;LFke~ vf/kfu;e] 1940 & /kkjk 13 & ek/;LFke~ dk;Zokgh & e/;LFk çfØ;k vFkok lk{; ds fu;eksa ls vkc) ugha gSa & mls dsoy uSlfxZd U;k; ds ewy fl)karksa dk vuqlj.k djuk gksrk gSA 1979 ts ,y ts 223 voyafcrA 1974 ts ,y ts 334 çHksfnrA ¿iSjk 38
¼9½ ek/;LFke~ vf/kfu;e] 1940 & /kkjk 14] 13 rFkk 30 & çfr}a}h çfrfojks/kksa ij fu"d"kZ fn, x, & iapkV Ik{kdkjksa }kjk çLrqr nLrkosth lk{; dk ifj.kke & iapkV vopkj ;qDr ugha gSaA , vkb vkj 1955 ,l lh 468 çHksfnrA ¿iSjk 40
¼10½ ek/;LFke~ vf/kfu;e] 1940 & /kkjk 39 & ds v/khu vihy & vihy U;k;ky; e/;LFkksa }kjk fopkj fd, x, lk{; dh iqu% ijh{kk vkSj iquewZY;kadu ugha djrk gSA , vkb vkj 1971 ,l lh 1646 rFkk , vkb vkj 1987 ,l lh 81 vuqlfjrA ¿iSjk 41
¼11½ ek/;LFke~ vf/kfu;e] 1940 & /kkjk 2 ¼d½ rFkk 2 ¼M-½ & fyf[kr ^^ek/;LFke~ djkj** & funsZ‘k ,di{kh; Hkh gks ldrk gSA , vkb vkj 1985 ,l lh 1003 vuqlfjrA ¿iSjk 44
¼12½ ek/;LFke~ vf/kfu;e] 1940 & /kkjk 14 & Hkkxhnkjh QeZ & ,d Hkkxhnkj }kjk nSuafnu dkjckj esa çfrck/kk,¡ & ykHk dk mldk va‘k çHkkfor fd, fcuk mldh cSad ls jde vkgj.k djus dh ‘kfDr Bhd okil yh xbZA , vkb vkj 1982 fnYyh 131 voyafcrA ¿iSjk 43
R.P. Awasthy, J.--1. It is a Misc. Appeal under section 39 (VI) of the Arbitration Act (Act in short) against the judgment and decree dated 11.4.90 passed by the Second Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Hoshangabad, in Civil Suit No. 2-A of 1989, making awards dt. 19.8.88 and 28.3.89, made by the arbitrators as rule of the Court.
2. There is not much dispute about the facts of the case which are as below:-
Bhurelal (respondent No.1) is the father of respondent No.2 Gajanand and petitioner Govind Prasad, Respondent No. 3 Gopal Prasad Agrawal happens to be the son of Bhurelal. All of the said four persons viz. Bhurelal, Gajanand, Govind Prasad and Gopal Prasad were and are running a partnership business at ltarsi, District, Hoshangabad. The name of the said registered partnership concern was and is Mohanlal Hiralal of ltarsi. Respondents 4 and 5 viz. Banwarilal and Gopal Prasad Agrawal were appointed as arbitrators as per arbitration agreement dt. 17.8.88. The said arbitrators passed an award on 19.8.88. In the said award itself all of the partners signed under endorsement that they have read the contents of the award and that they agree with it.
3. In the said award dt. 19.8.88 itself it is mentioned as below:-
mijksDr vkns"k ,oa funsZ"kksa ds ifjikyu esa ;fn dksbZ O;ogkfjd dfBukbZ] erHksn ;k O;k[;k ckcr~ dksbZ Hkze mRiUu gksos rks bl laca/k esa iap Jh cuokjhyky th tktw th ,oa xksiky çlkn th vxzoky dks jsQj fd;k tkosxk vkSj muds }kjk nh xbZ O;k[;k ,oa gy lHkh Ik{kksa ij iw.kZ :Ik ls ca/kudkjd jgsxk ,oa bl QSlys dk gh ,d vax ekuk tkosxkA
4. After passing of the said award Bhurelal, Gajanand and Gopal Prasad submitted an application dt. 3.3.89 to the arbitrators mentioning inter alia that Govind Prasad (petitioner in this case) was causing hindrance and obstruction in day to day running of the business of the partnership concern. It was prayed ill the said application that the arbitrators may convene a meeting and decide the said matter in the said meeting. Thereupon, the arbitrators (respondents 4 and 5) sent a letter dt. 5.3.89 attached with the said application dated 3.3.89 to the petitioner Govind Prasad. The arbitrators informed the petitioner, Govind Prasad, that they would convene a meeting for deciding the said matter and resolving the said dispute on 14.3.89.
5. In reply, Govind Prasad acknowledged the receipt of the said letter and submitted that it would not be possible for him to attend the said meeting on 14.3.89. It was further submitted by him in the said letter that the said meeting may be convened on 19.3.89 so that he may submit his reply in the said matter. Thereupon, the arbitrators informed all of the partners that the date of the meeting had been changed and had been •fixed for 25.3.89 which could continue upto 26.3.89. By the said letter it was also suggested that the partners should bring all the documents which might be in their possession to support their contention.
6. On 25.3.89 the meeting was convened at the place and time for which information was given to the partners. In the said meeting Bhurelal did not appear on the ground of his failing health. Bhurelal sent a letter through his elder son Gopal Prasad for being submitted to panchas. In the said letter Bhurelal reposed his confidence in the arbitrators and submitted that he would be agreeable to and abide by the decision given by the arbitrators.
7. During the said meeting the arbitrators heard the contentions made by the partners who were present viz. the petitioner and the respondents No.2 and 3. The arbitrators conversed on phone with senior most partner Bhurelal as well. Thereafter, the award dt. 25.3.89 was passed and it was declared in the said award that it was merely supplementary to and a part of the previous award dt. 19.8.88.
8. In the previous award dt. 19.8.88 it was decided by the arbitrators that the amount would be drawn from the bank through the cheque signed by the petitioner and respondent No.3 Gopal Prasad joint
