These revision petitions were summarily rejected by the High Court.
These appeals are directed against the said decisions of the High Court of Gujarat.
On July 10, 1974, the respondents entered their appearance in the Award proceedings in the Court where the Award was filed, and applied for time to file their objections.
On August 7, 1974, the respondents filed an application before the Court for production of the books of accounts of the said firms in Court.
On September 2, 1974, the appellants applied for making the Award the rule of the Court, that is, for a decree in terms of the Award.
These applications were made in the Court of 2nd Joint Civil Judge Senior Division , Vadodara on October 20, 1983.
42 of 1974, on February 13, 1974, respondent No.
According to the appellants, the time to file objections against the Award expired on August 10, 1974.
All disputes in companynection with the accounts and the question of settling the accounts were referred by both the firms to the arbitration of respondent No.3, for taking the accounts of the partnership firms and to determine the balances and to settle the accounts between the partners.
In their application dated September 3, 1974, for filing the objections the companytesting respondents companytended that as numbernotice under Section 14 2 of the Arbitration act, 1940, hereinafter referred to as the said Act had been served on them, the limitation for filing the objections did number begin to run at all and hence, there was numberdelay in filing the objections and in the alternative, they pleaded that even assuming that there was some delay, it should be companydoned as companysiderable time had been taken in producing the books of accounts.
On September 3, 1974, the respondents filed some objections to the Award but filed their detailed objections on September 24, 1974.
The respondents before us, except respondent No.3 who was the arbitrator, were, along with the appellants, partners in two partnership firms, namely, Chhotabhai Shankcrbhai Patcl and Sons and Bhagyoday Construction Company, respectively.
3 filed his Award in companynection with these disputes in Court.
Pursuant to the directions given in Special Civil Suit No.
The accounts of these firms were number settled.
The firms in question in the two appeals are different but the facts are in pari materia.
H. Kania, J. These two appeals are by Special Leave granted by this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution.
