1 made an application to the Subordinate Judge at Berhampur on December 10, 1946, M.J.C. No.
Amongst these partners was respondent No.
Then all the parties gathered on the companyrt verandah and the appellant handed over the fair companyy of the agreement to the arbitrator.
1 to withdraw and number to prosecute the criminal case was a companysideration for which the appelant and his friends entered into the arbitration agreement.
Petition No.
This criminal companyplaint was numbered as Criminal Case No.
1 along with respondent No.
Two of the partners then retired from the said business and took away their shares in the Capital and the profits.
That is how the impugned arbitration.
On December 30, 1943, respondent No.
The said.,
The appellant then preferred a Revisiona.
Appeals from the Judgment and decree dated March 5, 1954, of the Orissa High Court in Mies.
1 as a result of which the dispute between the appellant and others and respondent No.
1 claimed for himself alone the amount due to him and respondent No.
The arbitrator then began his proceedings and after recording evidence, he pronounced his award ex parte on September 14, 1946, During the pendency of the said arbitration proceedings, the, appellant had applied to the Subordinate Judge at Berhampur for removing the arbitrator on the ground of his misconduct under ss, 5 and II of the,, Arbitration Act M.J.C. No.
had 0.2.0 share.
By his application, the appellant claimed the setting aside of the award on several grounds, one of which was that the arbitration agreement was invalid under s. 23 of the Indian Contract Act.
Respondent No.
1 stated that he had numberevidence to support his case and so, the companyplaint was dismissed and the arbitration paper signed by the parties was handed over to the arbitrator, Mr. Murty.
The appellant also carried on another business in paddy and ground nuts and in this business too he took as his partners four out of his six partners in the business of milling rice and extracting oil from ground nuts.
This latter busssiness was carried on for about 14 months until the end of March, 1942.
25 and 26 of 1949.
1 then proceeded to file a criminal companyplaint in the Court of the Joint Magistrate at Berhampur against six persons, including the appellant.
139 of 1943, and after process was issued on it and some preliminary steps had been taken, it stood adjourned for hearing to December 30, 1943.
4 was entitled to share equally the profits with respondent No.
V. Viswanatha Sastri and T. V. B. Tatachari, for the appellant.
The business of the partnership thus carried on by these partners went on till the 15th September, 1942.
S. K. Sastri for respondent No.
Accordingly, when the criminal case was called out for hearing on that date, respondent No.
1 was agreed to be referred to the arbitration of Mr. Murty on the respondent No.
The substance of the charge thus levelled by respondent No.
1 and the accused persons entered into an agreement Exbt.
Gurumurty Raju.
CIVIL APPELATE, JURISDICTION Civil Appeals Nos.
agreement came to be passed between the parties and Mr. Murty came to be appointed an arbitrator.
The remaining.three partners companytinued the business of the firm the appellant had As.0.7.3 share, respondent No.
4 demanded that the said amount should be divided half and half between him and respondent No.
I Application against the order of the trial Judge Revision.
1 then demanded that the accounts should be made and the profits divided between the partners.
It appears that Appa Rao was companyfronted with his prior statement made in the proceedings started by the appellant to remove the arbitrator for misconduct.
34 of 1944 .
1 should withdraw the criminal case and the arbitration should settle their dispute.
As a result of this demand, the partnership wasstopped, accounts were made and profits divided.
2 had 0.6.9 share and respondent No.
The partnership carried on the work of milling rice and extracting oil from ground nuts.
It appears that the appellant took a lease of the Parlakimedi Samasthanam Rice and Oil Mill for three years from 1941 to 1944 under a registered lease deed on the 9th December.
After the award was thus pronounced, respondent No.
Appeals Nos.
0.2.0.
That is how a dispute arose about the share of respondent No.
1 obtained an attachment of the account books of the two businesses carried on by the appellant with his partners.
The appellant filed an application on January 14, 1947, in the same Court under s. 33 of the Arbitration Act for setting aside the award J.C. No.
Both the Courts have rejected this companytention.
Respondent No.
The appellant and respondent No.
2 took away their respective amounts, but respondent No.
494 and 495 of 1957.
1 agreed to with draw the criminal case and number to prosecute it an it was in companysideration of that promise that hentered into the arbitration agreement.
1 agreeing to withdraw his criminal companyplaint.
4, whereas respondent No.
In these proceedings, respondent No.
For the working of the Mill, the appellant took six partners with him and their shares in the partnership were duly determined.
The rent agreed to be paid was Rs.
1962 August 22.
107 and 120 B of the Indian Penal Code.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by GAJENDRAGADKAR, J. The short question which arises in these two appeals is whether the Muchalika Agreement of Reference which was executed by the appellant and the four respondents in favour of Tanguda Narasimhamurty on the 30th of December, 1943, is invalid because its companysideration was opposed to public policy under s. 23 of the Indian Contract Act.
To both these applications, all the parties to the Reference and the Arbitrator were impleaded.
Both the trial Court and the High Court of Orrisa have answered this question in the negative, and the appellant, who has companye to this Court with a certificate granted by the High Court under Art.
1 was that the accounts of the partnership had been fraudulently altered with a view to show that respondent No.
8 of 1947 .
In this companyplaint he alleged that the six accused persons had companymitted offences underss.
Pending the disposal of the.
Thus, the partnership, in fact, companysisted of five partners respondents 1 and 4 being together entitled to a share of As.
said Revision Petition, the award was pronounced on September 14, 1946.
14 and 30 of the Arbitration Act for the filing of the award and for passing a decree in terms thereof.
application was dismissed.
These two steps were related to each other as cause and effect, or one step was or companysideration and the other was the acceptance of the proposal to enter into the arbitration agreement.
C.R. 78 of 1946 , but the said petition was also dismissed on March 26, 1949.
105 of 1946 under ss.
1 told the criminal companyrt about his inability to prove his case and accordingly the case was dismissed.
