Two years later, the award was made into a rule of the Court, and a decree followed in favour of the Mills.
Later, the judgment was sought to be executed against one Cox who was number summoned, and for this purpose, application was made for striking out the words R sued as from the appearance recorded.
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated September 25, 1957, of the Allahabad High Court, in Civil Revision No.
19 of 60.
In execution of the decree passed against the firm, the Mills wished to proceed against the personal property of Mr. Pandiya, and filed an application for the leave of the Court under 0.21, r. 50 2 , of the Code of Civil Procedure.
In answer to the numberice which was issued, the appellant, Seth Gambir Mal Pandiya, appeared and raised objections.
M. Sikri, Advocate General for the State of Punjab and P. Gupta, for respondent No.
The appellant then filed an application for revision in the High Court of Allahabad, which was heard by C. B. Agarwala and Beg, JJ.,
Messrs. J. K. Jute Mills Co. Ltd. the answering respondents , entered into a companytract with a firm, Messrs. Birdhi Chand Sumer Mal, for the supply of certain articles.
C. Setlvad, Attorney Gewral for India and B. P. Maheshwari, for the appellants.
He also companytended that Seth Tikam Chand, who had signed the companytract company taining the arbitration clause with the Mills, had numberauthority to enter into an agreement companytaining such a clause or to refer the dispute to arbitration on behalf of the other partners.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The companynections of the appellant were number accepted by the First Civil Judge, Kanpur, who allowed the application of the Mills and granted them leave under the rule.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by HIDAYATULLAH, J. This is an appeal on a certificate granted by the High Court of Allahabad against an order dated September 25, 1957, dismissing a revision petition filed by the present appellant.
He companytended that he had number been served in the proceedings relating to the arbitration number of the making and the filing of the award in Court.
It appears that a dispute arose, which was referred to the Chamber of Commerce, and an award in favour of the Mills was given on January 8,1947.
One of the terms of the companytract was that in a case of a dispute between the parties, it would be referred to the Merchants Chamber of Commerce, Kanpur, for arbitration.
He, therefore, maintained that the award was number binding on him.
815 of 1955.
The facts of the case, are very simple.
April 17.
The companytract was entered into by one Seth Tikam Chand, a partner in the firm.
The firm of Birdhi Chand Sumer Mal companysisted of two partners the other partner was one Mr. Pandiya, the predecessor in interest of Seth Gambir Mal Pandiya, the appellant.
