Skip to content


Sohan Lal Bansal Vs. Arjunmal Dudani and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectArbitration
CourtRajasthan High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Revn. No. 524 of 1965
Judge
Reported inAIR1967Raj85
ActsArbitration Act, 1940 - Sections 20 and 21
AppellantSohan Lal Bansal
RespondentArjunmal Dudani and anr.
Appellant Advocate J.S. Rastogi, Adv.
Respondent Advocate H.C. Jain, Adv.
DispositionPetition dismissed
Cases ReferredDulari Devi v. Rajendra Prakash
Excerpt:
- .....between the partners the matter shall be referred to arbitration mutually agreed upon between the parties. arjunmal invoked this clause and asked sohanlal to refer to arbitration the dispute between the two with regard to partnership matters. an award was eventually tiled in court by the arbitrator and sohanlal filed an objection inter alia on the ground that the reference was invalid as all the partners had not joined in it. the learned civil judge dismissed this objection. against that order the present revision implication has been filed.3. the contention on behalf of the applicant is that even in an arbitration without the intervention of the court all interested persons should join in the reference. reliance is placed on the decision of a learned single judge of the lahore high.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Jagat Narayan, J.

1. This is a revision application by one Sohanlal against an order of the Civil Judge, Ganganagar, dismissing the objection that the reference to arbitration was invalid because other partners have not joined in it.

2. Sohanlal applicant, Arjunmal respodent and some others entered into a partnership on 8-11-63. Under Clause 10 of the partnership agreement it was provided that in case of a dispute between the partners the matter shall be referred to arbitration mutually agreed upon between the parties. Arjunmal invoked this clause and asked Sohanlal to refer to arbitration the dispute between the two with regard to partnership matters. An award was eventually tiled in Court by the arbitrator and Sohanlal filed an objection inter alia on the ground that the reference was invalid as all the partners had not joined in it. The learned Civil Judge dismissed this objection. Against that order the present revision implication has been filed.

3. The contention on behalf of the applicant is that even in an arbitration without the intervention of the court all interested persons should join in the reference. Reliance is placed on the decision of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court in Adbul Ghani v. Siraj-ud-din. AIR 1939 Lah 154.

4. On behalf of Arjunmal respondent reliance is placed on the following decisions: Diala Ram v. Mt. Nihali Bai, AIR 1936 Pesh 96; Dulari Devi v. Rajendra Prakash, AIR 1959 All 711. I have carefully considered the above decisions in the light of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. I am respectfully in agreement with the view taken in the Peshawar and Allahabad cases. Section 21 which relates to 'arbitration in suits' provides that the parties interested in the dispute must agree to refer any matter in difference between them in the suit to arbitration. There is no similar provision contained in Section 20, which relates to arbitration where no suit is pending.

I am accordingly of the opinion that the decision of the court below is correct and dismiss the revision application. The costs of this revision application shall abide the final result of the suit.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //