9911796707
TMI Blog1974 (1) TMI 106X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... business. The business was set up by the appellant and the respondent as partners in December 1962. As usual with many partnerships, the partner did not march in step for long Within six months they fell out. On August 22, 1963, they could, however, agree to refer their disputes to the arbitration of two persons, Sri R.N. Sharma and Sri C.M. Sharma. The agreement is in writing. It referred the disputes of our concern and gave the arbitrators full authority to decide our dispute . The arbitrators gave their award on September 20, 1963. They filed the award in the high Court on November, 1963. On September 10, 1964 the respondent filed an application for determining the validity of the agreement and for setting aside the award. On May 27, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st argument as we are of opinion that the award requires registration and, not being registered, is inadmissible in evidence for the purpose of pronouncing judgment in accordance with it. So we pass on to the remaining two arguments of the appellant. It is well settled now that the share of a partner in the assets of the partnership which has also immovable properties is movable property and the assignment of the share does not require registration under s. 17 Registration Act. (See Ajudhia Parshad Ram Parshad v. Sham Sunder and others (A. I. R. 1947 Lahore 13 at p. 20) Addanki Narayanappal v. Bhaskara Kristappa([1966] 3 S. C. R. 400 at pp. 406 and 407) and Commissioner of Income-tax, west Bengal Calcutta v. Juggilal Kamalapat ([1967] 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2. Link Machinery Ltd. ₹ 1079.28 3. Clendent Products Rs.47.25 4. Minerva Engineering Works Rs.514.18 Total ₹ 1924.88 (8) -The factory should not be run by Dr. Ratan Lal Sharma until and unless the payment of the award is not made to Shri Purushottam Harit . The word not is a slip here. The parties conceded before the learned Single Judge that the award deals with immovable property worth above ₹ 100/-. So if it is found by us that the award purports to create rights in. the appellant over immovable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Court could not look into it. If the Court could not, as we held, look in to it, the Court could not pronounce judgment in accordance with it. Sections 17 Arbitration Act presupposes an award which can be validly looked into by the Court. The appellant cannot successfully invoke s. 17. The award is an inseparable tangle of several clauses and cannot be enforced as to the part not dealing with immovable property. As already stated, various other relevant clauses constitute consideration for, clause (1), that is, for the creation of absolute rights in the factory and other properties in favour of the appellant. This is perfectly clear from a the note of the arbitrators appended to the award as clause 8. The appellant is not given a right ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
