insofar as the first mentioned case is companycerned the facts reveal that the appellant and the respondent who had set up a partnership business in december 1962 soon fell out.
both the partnerships were of fixed durations.
number 247/84 granted a stay against the operation of the award on 5th september 1984.
thereafter a new partnership firm was companystituted between j and the trust with specified shares.
on september 10 1964 the respondent filed an application for determining the validity of the agreement and for setting aside the award.
under the award exclusive allotment of the partnership assets including the factory and liabilities was made in favour of the appellant and it was provided that he shall be absolutely entitled to the same in consideration of a sum of rs.
on may 27 1966 a learned single judge of the high companyrt dismissed the application as barred by time but declined to make the award the rule of the companyrt because in his view the award was void for uncertainty and created rights in favour of the appellant over immoveable property worth over rs.
number 191 of 1988 o.p.
disputes have arisen among us with respect to the several business companycerns immoveable and moveable properties standing in our names as well as other relatives.
the partnership had a factory and other moveable and immoveable properties.
the arbitrators made their award on september 10.
the division bench dismissed the appeal as number maintainable whereupon this companyrt was moved by special leave.
from the judgment and order dated 13.11.91 of the madras high companyrt in o.s.a.
number 230/84 and application number 3505 of 1984 and dated 27.1.1992 in o.s.a.
sometime thereafter the three brothers created a trust with themselves as the first three trustees and simultaneously executed a deed of relinquishment relinquishing their rights in and claims to all the properties and assets of the firm in favour of j and of themselves in the capacity of trustees.
oil mills both partnerships being registered under the partnership act 1932.
strong reliance was however placed by the learned companynsel for the respondents on two decisions of this companyrt namely ratan lal sharma v. purshottam harit 1974 3 scr 109 and 2 lachman das v. ram lal andanr 1989 3 scc 99.
the firm owned both moveable and immoveable properties.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeals number.
with special leave petition number 9408 of 1992.
the arbitrators filed the award in the high companyrt on numberember 8 1963.
in companymissioner of income tax west bengal calcutta v. juggilal kamalapat 1967 1 scr 784 air 1967 sc 401 the facts were that three brothers and one j. entered into a partnership business.
17491752 of 1992.
iyer s. sivasubramaniam r. thamodharan dr.
number 9 of 1992.
100 requiring registration.
k. sen a.t.m.
sampath and sitharanjandas for the appellants.
against the judgment of the learned single judge the matter was carried in appeal to a division bench of the high companyrt of madras.
they were carrying on business in partnership in the name and style of messers sivalinga nadar and brothers and s.v.s.
most of the properties were acquired by the firm of sivalinag nadar and brothers.
the following judgment of the companyrt was delivered by ahmadi j. the four appellants and respondents 1 and 2 are brothers.
the madras vanaspati limited at villupuram.
julian for m s arputham aruna company and a. mariarputham for the respondents.
on august 22 1963 the partners entered into an agreement to refer the dispute to the arbitration of two persons and gave the arbitrators full authority to decide their dispute.
