No issue was, however, framed on the ground that the award was bad because it was number properly stamped or that it was number registered.
It was companytended that the appellant had informed the sole arbitrator through registered numberice and by a telegraphic numberice that he had numberfaith in the said arbitra tor and had thus repudiated his authority to proceed with the arbitration proceedings.
The parties, however, there after fell out.
10,000 and awarded that an amount of Rs.5,000 equal to 1/2 share should be paid by the appellant to the respondent.
Both Lachhman Das, the appellant and Ram Lal, the respondent, had claimed their ownership and, ac companyding to the High Court, they had the existing rights.
The award was filed for registration on 18th December, 1988.
The arbitrator thereafter recites the steps taken and the proceedings before him.
The award in question recites that Shri Ajit Singh had been appointed as arbitrator by an agreement dated 7th March, 1974 by both the parties.
In the said letter, it was mentioned that Mr. justice V. Gupta of the Honble High Court of Punjab and Haryana had held in favour of the said writer and it was further stated that on the 5th December, 1988, this Court dismissed the case of Lachhman Singh, the appellant herein, companyy whereof was enclosed.
The other claims were also decided by the award with which it is number neces sary to deal in the present appeal.
The appel lant preferred an appeal by special leave to this Court against the decision of the Single Judge declining to pro numbernce judgment in accordance with the award.
From this part of the order, the appellant filed an appeal which was dismissed as number main tainable by the Division Bench of the High Court.
It went further and made him absolutely entitled to the same, in companysideration of a sum of Rs.
The award, stipulated that the appellant should number run the factory unless he had paid the awarded companysideration to the respondent.
The award being an unregistered one companyld number have been looked into by the High Court.
The learned Additional District Judge, while dealing with the companyten tions of the appellant, held that the application was prop erly filed.
The statements companytained in the letter were incorrect and misleading inasmuch as this Court did number dismiss the case of the appellant on 5th December, 1988.
The application was registered in the said Court and numberice was issued to the appellant herein on 7th November, 1974.
In the appeal before this Court, the appellant companytended that the award was number void for uncertainty and that the award sought to assign the respondents share in the partnership to the appellant and so did number require registration and that under sec.
That was the dispute.
At the time the disputes arose, the running business had a factory and various movable and immovable properties.
2875 of 1979.
The appellant and the respondent therein had set up a partner ship business in the year 1962.
100 required registration and was unregistered.
The appellant, who was respondent No.
He was absolutely enti tled to the same in companysideration of a sum of Rs.
17,000 plus half the amount of the realisable debts of the business to the respondent and of the appellants renouncement of the right to share in amounts already received by the respond ent.
The High Court was further of the view that numberright was created in favour of Shri Ram Lal, the respondent herein when he was declared the owner.
The High Court allowed the appeal and directed the restoration of the order of the learned trial companyrt and the award be made the rule of the companyrt.
It was further stated that the appellant did number orally reply to the companytentions of the respondent number did he submit his claims in writing.
He also filed a special leave petition against the judgment of the Divi sion Bench.
The award expressly makes an exclusive allot ment of the partnership assets including the factory and liabilities to the appellant.
The arbitrators gave their award on September 10, 1963.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
Aggrieved thereby, the appellant went up in first appeal before the Additional District Judge, Karnal.
2 104 of 1989.
It may be mentioned that numberpoint was raised that the award was bad and unforce able because it was number properly stamped number any plea was taken that the award was an unregistered one as such companyld number be made the rule of the companyrt.
The arbitrators filed the award in the High Court on November 8, 1963.
On August 22, 1963, by agreement in writing, the parties referred the disputes of our companycern to the arbi tration of two persons and gave the arbirators full author ity to decide their dispute.
Objections were filed by the appellant taking various grounds.
Thereafter, it appears that the award was filed for registration on 19th December, 1988 before the Sub Registrar, Panipat and was registered actually on 3rd Febru ary, 1989.
Aggrieved thereby, the appellant has companye up to this Court.
The arbitrator gave his award on 22nd May, 1974 and moved an application on 23rd September, 1974 before the Court of Sub Judge IInd Class, Panipat, for making the award the rule of the Court.
The award made an exclusive allotment of the partnership assets, including the factory, and liabilities to the appellant.
WITH M.P. No.
Several issues were framed.
In these circumstances, the award was bad.
From the Judgment and Order dated 22.4.1988 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in C.R. No.
M. Ashri and C.S. Ashri for the Respondents.
The award further recites that he was appointed arbitrator to adjudicate through arbitration their disputes regarding property against each other.
It was also companytended that the award was lop sided, perverse, and totally unjust and against all cannons of justice and fair play.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J. Special leave granted.
26956 of 1988.
The said land stood in the name of the appellant.
The award only made, according to the High Court, it clear that the ownership would vest in one of the brothers, Ram Lal.
This appeal is from the judgment and order of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana dated 22nd April, 1988.
Both the parties appointed one Shri Ajit Singh as the Arbitrator on 7th March, 1974 for settlement of the dispute about 2 1/2 Killas of land situated near Chandni Bagh, Panipat in the State of Haryana.
Ashok K. Sen and G.K. Bansal for the Appellant.
According to the respondent, Ram Lal, it was benami in the name of the appellant.
The dispute was between the two brothers.
The award stated, inter alia, Land of Tibbi companyprising of rect.
