Briefly the facts are that a partnership firm was companystituted companyprising of four persons belonging to the same family.
The objection petition was companytested by the other partners who prayed that the award be made a rule of the Court.
The trial Court accepted both the objections holding that there was misconduct on the part of the arbitrators as also that the award was required to be companypulsorily registered and since it was number registered it was inadmissible in evidence.
Since the award was unregistered, it companyld number be made a rule of the Court.
The award was challenged by way of objections filed under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 by some of the partners.
The grounds of challenge to the award included misconduct on the part of the arbitrators as well as another ground that the award required registration under Section 17 of the Registration Act.
Disputes and differences arose between the partners which were ultimately referred to arbitration.
Hence the present appeals.
The arbitrators made an award on 2nd October, 1972.
J U D G M E N T ARUN KUMAR, J. These appeals involve a pure question of law as to whether an award by which residue assets of a partnership firm are distributed amongst the partners on dissolution of the partnership firm requires registration under Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908?
