Shriyala Devi vs Prathibha on 12 July, 2011

[Cites 5, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Shriyala Devi vs Prathibha on 12 July, 2011

Bench: Jawad Rahim

" V'  iieu-':f.ti€'be:*Ee<3v=.:*--. A.

7?

MISC. CVL. IS FILED U/ORDER 4}. RULE 27 R/W SEC.
151, CPC, PRAYING YO PERMI3" THE PETITIGNER "YO
PRODUCE ASSITIONAL SOCUMENTS. 

This petition and appfication coming on 

this day, the court made the fcﬂlewing

This revision is directed a'gair{st..--r'the._erder'idreted'

29.8.2009 in Arbitration case-rt:\za_,:/oi?-traits' Ne';3,¥'$§'S..}VVen3 the 

fiie of Civil Judge, {Sr.D'Ex/n.j>, Keri<eeie..,_»_referrriineﬁ tee dispute
between the parties  of We Pedivai
Vegetarian RestazurantIferv:.ajrbiVt--re:td§_dri"'iwexercise of power
conferred  Act, 1940,
{tzereieafter--»..re:feé:red"   for the purpose of

brevity/ii.  V

2. _HVeardK.* _VPe.-rt'i'esA"vwVitE"I" be referred as per reek. in the

'.1,'7.,«eeet::;,>;;:es: facts te whieirz refererzee bee beer: eéeee

by "E§";e"--§Vee1r;**éVed genie: eeazecetes fer the eertéea vie', Se

H""Au":.,:e%er;i..§§eeVejet2ee Rae fer the peéetienet" eee Sré Cheeerekeeth

_  §'c"»«\.r§'5g2a'5A eeeeeréeg fer the reseeeeeet, eeé ee eiee ezeraifeet:

 "'§:'e:e the ease eepere, reveei:



"::- WP,»
/"ix W
../



3
a) S:*r2E:.Pratib§":a filed a petition under Sectiee 8 of the

Act requesting the court to refer the dispute betweei;i"'.tfie

partiee reiating to the firm Padivai vegetarian 

for decision by an arbitrator.

b) In ssupport of the relief sti'~:.s0i;i"g§<>:'t, 

26.6.1986, she and smt.seriy_a--i.; W V§jre.s'p>;:.:ii'dA~ei;;ji'i--:..in? the 

eetitien) had censtituted themseiwiies 'into a..'i::aft_?3€§{5;hip firm
to run the hotei busiriest; in'-.th{e, style Padival
Vegetarian Restaurant,w'%th::"'effe;jt__    1986. They

ag reed the    'aat  

  consequent to which
she isstieﬁ aVn'0.tiCve{v'w<§ate5'«.3:4,1,E99S disseiving the firm

and cA:a_Eied 4éi'p<;:f:'t.fi'~e Afeéﬁendent te wind up the business

'xi'"V-a;"2di..§;:§er':§i:"i--it} a%e§t'f'éti0n 3S per ciazsse 16 ef tfze aiieged

 e_§é3;%:h'e§Sf:E1.E:A§'véﬁeetﬁa. {Ex.?2j:i She further requesteﬂ the eeuri:

'¥C§Aé3_;§:{}O§{§§C"E§:if~i '§S,§<emati"i,, Ciharteree Acceamtent, is be the

"~..a:'%itra%';'.:;}__f3-er any ether gergen iﬁ.='§'"§O ii: may f?E§{i§< fit»

if  Gm beieg gumreeeeﬁi mseeegéerit %"§$§S§:$d the

 eéeceedéegg, firgtiy en the techeicai grease that the



4
preceedirzgs under Section 8 of the Aer. was hot tenabEe are
the aﬁeged firm, on adrrritted facts was; not registered. The

second ground was, there was he partnership aetaeen

them, nor did they censtitute themselves into a__:§§fa'rt--h'e-rah3:9 _

erzder the name and styie Padival Vegetarian   

aﬁeged. Document referred to iri=.A:the-rr,devtitéeQh._as deans 

partnership, was deecrEbed.»'aa___ a éhatm, c:;h'c';;€,tVed aland 

forged document.

e) Thus, she de;d_i'ed"  to the
petitioner in any Amanneaz. the petitioner
had induigedﬂ  create a right in

respectief' --i;he.vb'tisirses$» 4w.hEth'was net earthershép concern.

hf} Based V_:c§r.r'.i::'f'1eA'r"razV:iter§aE prepesitien in the pfeadéngsf

 ~..%;he'~'€..e:atihedwttriat jt2«d'{;'e'framed the feiiowing twe issues:

,1 
x,' 

*__"re:r,jn'er:{:::v:a:ae;: the eetrtieher proves that an
 « ?:"e.._{6;~t'§'845 the aetitéerzer and reaeehdeht
_t:e?r's-gyiétrsted a eattherahip fer tgarryérsg en
€bs_§;";'ihees ef mhhérrg the hetet ii": the heme
" ;'-and styie ef M/5 eadhraha tlegetaréara
Vﬁeetaeraez?

 72} Whether the reeeerzdeht QEGVES that the
aheged earthership deed dated 25r§,r:§85 E3

\
ex 2



:3
it/'

5

cencocted, fabricated and

decument?

not vaiid

g) Whiie discharging the burden cast an 
them, gjetitiener commenced evidence. It 
record that neither the petEtEonVerr"e.oAr 
adduced ocular testimeny persenaiiiy.  

evidence through persons ep:;j5'e.iV_nted." buy'  their '' '

..rdhusband,

attorneys. {Lin izaehaif of the V:.'pet'i't»i.Qher,"'iv:
Dr.M.Shrehamsa Kumar"?"'aed-i\§a_ivVi§xi§is.'e§€aArréi'hed as PW1 and
one Raghupathi$;3hat5'st"ra'i5e  rivartriershép deed was

examined {Q Péafeiied. On behaif of the

respondvehtr\"'..i%i.e,i\:/::;i3t;sban_d'-C.'K--...P.adEvaf was; examined as
RW1 and  produced. Through their

ecuiar andL4_de{:;.,:rrieniiarrﬂevidence, each tried 're support

 the§:"«.%fes;3~ect§ve <:~:trevtee&tiees.

 that judge acceeting the sage 9%" the

eet£.?;44i'ener,ietgeiésed the eetétieng eeeeéeting 3:; E,S,i<ameth

 tee" e_;r°eitrater aed referred the déseute eiehéighied by

V'  "--i'j:e.si_fé:' deeésien in; ereitrei ereeeedéees.

it  A ~  



{i
i) During the pehdency oi the proceedings,
respondent iiaé fiied aii appiication I.A.7 seeking disii1i_ssaE

of the petition on the greiind Section 69 of Partnership Act impacts the proceedings and i' could be ehtertainee as the firm was net 2 application was rejected which 0rC!e1Ai7'ie'ific'3§ "questiVenedi. this cpuri: in C.R.P.614/99, bi;ii;it=...iwasA'a faivit_ire,,_ "9ifri'i'ismti:eiii: * T' heid that Sectien 69 ef the Part.ne:r3.hip_,LAct iviiiiiiiid Vi?'i§C)t affect the proceedings under S"eet;i--oié-- tiie.':i_Ar:b'itrati0ii Act even if partnership was' not Vpeifrhits appointment of an arbitr~ata_r 'de::i.di.hg--.."the diepute between the parties;V'Vh'eeVed*pn, aHn::'§.e'rbiti=e_'tEon apireeiiieht. Hence, the first <>bjeetion« raised A:7f;i3éV'i*E§:§';3.i3'i'1d€rii: was negated iiitimateiy by thfecoiiréti ._in'th'e r'eeii'i.tant position, the petition had to . '"--i.>e iiea{:i<:i."e<i an merit'; iiii 'VVj}.,::t§..n<i%§u.p7:ediy the rneei: quegtipzi iieediiig an aiieiiver iiiiaf:~:..:4 ifiiiteihéjef the partiee were knit in pertiierehip end 7-=.__V'-».wiietherV__A'1i;he eiiegeé eeed ei pettriersiiip eehtained an ' eiaiig (3.?! ﬁ€i'%%ii§"i§%i"'i§ tp erhitrei agreement ier mireiierring the dieptiie ize erpitretien?

-~.]

k) The petittc:mer's cahtentioh that it was a partnership was sought to be supported by the evidei'itﬁ¥ea.of saw: and W2. PW1 depesed that an zsstisissa'_p§iftitt:x§;"

had constituted themseives into a partne_tS.§,i'V_i_p.._a'h.d n_ha"d"'i executed inter alia a {fees matj¥<edi::'4as Raghupathi S.Bhat depssed ,b_eing "a 's--r:ribeat-bfitithe rm:

document and ciaimed to hav'é'i'a»ati:s~:~stedV"i~r3 hwitjhetiss of the parties signing it. He ng_r':it§_t§btstﬁibjaected vtiouthorongh t:rt3ss«-examination which I'T-shaii'réfer«..tb'A-'.iV_n _ tTi1e paragraphs foiiowtng. As"r.<§"gard=s :respdhti'eh*t.,_..Es« corrcerhedf her husbahd--R\f!1 t;iépt§s'ed» was no" partnership between the petitioner.arstr':--rtés.;§4t)t'rtti"e-nt and that the aiieged dee<:i~ E><.P2 was't._Ct)t}ct5ctét£. sinister design to usurp the %3ehs§§t'Vof~ths src--priVata:'y sttsirzess run by the respandent. ..Vi}--._§'i?aE*s4.iVi"':;._s?'2ort is the sariaus contest between the sartéas artaV."tjnéi'aié'ssattty the Eearttes? ttéaé mass has ts span; Q the eixiﬁsnsys ts secitie the tarsizantttms isstsss. Maantssaﬁnan Rae tar the asttttsntsr attsttis

-- tftgrétand tits intnagned stdar ts ssssed 0§ti\; with rstarancs V S ta what was deposed to by PW: and PW2 in their E3XE3F'{':i¥1ati{)F}*§ﬂ-C§"£ieEC and the triai ceurt has enjustifiéhfy ignered materiai evidence on retard eiicited crossexaminatiort. He wouid submit had gi».:e' to each question in the erosswexahjihatiﬂoh; beef}'takeh.__i%étAoTj consideration! it wouid haveV.s%:4_ewed'~.that PWi3's..Ve\}ide;n{ie demaiishee the petitienefe Ce§e.V;:"se_V aEée..t«he.V':ah':§wers of PW2 render the evétieece aeveeetance to establish existehce the parties.

Sri R80 would: respondent had questioned deed, it was te.--"VeetabEish it in the manner known the' ef which the that com": had FIG jurisdiction ta avccetit tiweiapeiicatien weer Section 8 of the

-.5": Ree has érawn my attehtieh te eeﬁatie §a~e":a::f€e7;;§ given by PW1 arse Piﬁizi §eV__é:'ee§atEen :3? theee eehientiaeef teamed aeeéer u"'a:§vej%;atei Sr; Cheeeraiaazzizh Arige wauid €§f":*:€%'id that the _H::_erzeeCE Cs? the reependent. was not oniy méschieveus ea': 9 she was guilty of suppressing materéaé facts. He aommenced cdhtendtng the evidence to 'r%;:'hri.{;h Mr.Mad%:usudhan Rad has adverted to, is of nd_;'é'vé.'E,VE_~ the pieadihgs respdhdent had met raised He read out to me the counter ﬂied .,é§'1f answer to the petition avermtarzts to 's.hvc§w that"V'thé:'_def~$;t2%:€ taken as dehéa! sim;3I:'C:'i"or, gpeésr'-ictpitéadang. He wouid submit except 3'raV:.'.'atdtawEeht and concocted, respohdent £5 nature of the business. in the counter respondent5ha:;_u_"art;drrted":'tt;;;:t"'t.:1d"'b£it:iness run under the name s'ti~;}§_.¢ Restaurant was a Qroﬂrietdryt' wards, his assertive conterstieh id; rJiere"aS'Ser.ti0n that the gartherstsip was not "VV."'€Qn"d~t§:tu5%i7ad "dsfé 26.€V.%i"9AV86 and that EXiP2 was a fdrged and

-53$:i§_Ct£§{Z*;:éi;§.,_&§'zL;rdt%.§"tf?é~t'*3°§"§§, tttdre ss rzd gteadirzg te the effect that it -$5.313 a.~p§?t)j';3réetary adncem. He wctsid submit: evédente T."-'««.__V'-waded" ttsd §ei§'{§Gﬁ€¥' agar: tram E><,P2; gartéeg had r"f;%t;§§3_§§_:§""E€§ an ddasettégerndttt reiatéréig ta: ¥;§"'E€ admmensarsent __®_t5 the tsugénegg desctédéreg §h€§"E"2S&§'z!8§ 33 gartrserst "ﬁat ma Ex

ii) document, accerding to him, is a ciincner tze ShOW that the parties were partners of tize fire': and businessve{a'ss.a partnership vente re.

7. Sri Chandrakarit Ariga wotzid then testimony of RW1 was wheiiy unreéiiabieséafe Qéiteethad f the extent of denying tt':e.__ sigtnattsre (respondent) affixed by her Fer instance, he wouid subtnéit 'Ri-it': e.ri»€¥ttem13t"teAvvdisprove Ex.P2 as a partnership...:Ceneeta;;; that the signature wife. He has further denied'ii..i5er V"0'§"a vekatat and counter fiied ceu'rtV.V':V"§3y.,:Vti1i:s',--s.s:_:§'ietSubmits the person had no regard feé**..trethVq'and._ the'i:'efere, the doctrine 'suppressio ve§§'te;eti'§d eeeiytw weefe then eeetend that the scene ':>Vf"eeqt.iV_§ttgi "e_ete__te the triai ceurt was very nerreez, iiﬁﬁ te see-.,ee%4y' '--%a;t:efstVi*ie:" there was existence ef an ereittettee Q egre"e§e"ent.'4ter referring the dtseete tat §§"E3§t§"&§§Q§3;= "Fee V' '..:rt§Au'e-stéee ae te eetettéet it was eeeeeetee et est eezséd net uneeei been eeeided ie the eesenee ef aey eteedéee, tie tiitmia further submit that eti eenteetiene at tee parties We "o ,/ ii referred to in paragraphs supra have beer: censieered by the trial ceert in the cerreet perspective, ieaving no seepe fer doubt. The finding recorded is on fact arre tr:e_°reffere',_4 this court in exercise of revisronai power under ' 135, C.P.C. cannot examine the fin.d'Errg4on "n.--§1e.V§t*.eg§d'..V further submit the scope of revi§:é.an7._ attached with severai fetters}»th:i'a~.Veourt wiii net b'e3'ueti'f:ed " L' in examining the evidence orr,r--ecr:ird"'r;r;§ dist"e'rtx.th.e finding of the trial court, unie's_s* i't.__3;s:i~ shewn to be without jurisdiction er in.{§)(.{2'€SS:"5f'jt£'§':§SCi'§E1i§'O§} eorjaferred on it. Concem, '-- ' 9' ,-Sr; Chen_dra»i<.ant'i*: riiriga has sought eitatienai seeport "rte "res; {:Terrt'e.rjztrert5retjarding the iirniteé scope ef revisierr 1 n--..eVr2i_rtr§Le fie-i..§ie"r.-a.rre.g'_}decésierz:

e:3,A:a 3.930 PC 5'?(SIﬁE>IK MOHAMED sears 9;, rmseaan 8: emrasi '' -.'e:%?r_e_reér: the eréwg Ceerreéé here that ieieae rrer reéeeet re .,,_r'§efeeeeMrre ew'e"er:2ee- ear? be reekeef tiger; rr. ' 12 II) AIR 1965 SC 553 (M/S MISRILAL PARASMAL .V. H.P.SADASIV'IAH 8: ANOTHER) where in the apex Court €;O§3S§derEE":§ the erovisEe:j"s".eof Mysore Rent and Accemmodatien Act, interference is permissible in revision n';e_te'l;{. 'be'Ceuse' decision is erroneous In law or tin fe<:'ts."«_ ~1Refe1*r§:3;g"""to sevetai case iaws ef the apex ff-Qurt §t9?:é§i",~. it vl3:ls;'.tAh';8ie" 'lfatiéell court is net satisﬁed about""'d'5;deh retjzxlrerréentv, the landlord, it will have V matte en order without the aid of that clause, rr;l::ow¢~;é;;%; says that it is satisfied it car?n'c:t:.'be :reg,zga.w;i'ecl» e'e1_"~.':a_L{ihg committed an error pertaihiz*t{j_Vto jt1r:'sdieti0n merely because it may have formed 3 Vwrong_lc"e_r;elUs{ée="es to the bona fides of the lendlerd En rec;;:);:';';r:'g;z eessessioe of the prermses, No illegal ' l"e$s£;rr:e?fien'"--efjeriedfﬁftlon ES tmxelved in arriving et e vasrorzg e.fir2:;*!ttg_;? ,ee,:~;;4e'veteetter..' $i§n---%.§eriy;~re%7elrr§eg te the Savage 0'? Seetéen 113' £35., the see: in es eeegsee reeettee 1§5§(3} see ee?

' {Vivi-.,e=f.-'eﬁeeeeestee erase Cﬁ?'~ISTR¥..,¥CYXQf~£ eemeessei '*e=i>..

£4 attorney and aise through PW2, ite scribe. But she did not enter the witness box te identify her signature or that of the respondent. The mode adopted by her wag te through PW1 and PW2.

1:. PW2 Claims to be the :"a'ij'dit4er_".,ef.;':thé_V:f;--tm.°--, Respondent has used this evideh'ce"--t_e assertien in the examihatienwsh-aﬁiztteef that eartrueérzship 'was V constituted, was totaiiy *d~é.$1odqe"d <2:bp._y of' ci'epes;Eti0a':

is appended te the petitier:e.'ehdv'\e:"sh_eft,AA_pe"per book is also ﬂied by the pa§rt'%'e.':3V;V:'.

:2. heéttedmitted to certain facts in his ctc;rss=e><amVEtietéers-~.y*;%'iwieh is extracted beiew:

aw? .. "A B"ahi<;13v':cotmt"' was opened En Kamataka Sank, Ketkaia, Breneh in the name et the ' a;1":ir;'t2, "§'he"h'5L3sear:d ef the reepeeeeht wee ._0«;}era"i:..%t__zg the Bank #7'\CC$U{'%E' But none ef * V";:a_:.:tners were eeerating the hank a::'C-etmyt, it E5 tree that the htssbehé of the .:'eej5§;.eAeeeztt whe is; my brother ﬁe met a . eetther of this firm. "the eetitéener the set W___eut%2er%:»:e the ?€S;3Gt':ée;'ﬁ;'$ husband te eeetete the eeeeeet in wrétéeg, E ee net kfiﬁtrﬁi the natete ef the eeée heme eeeetmt, E have net ebteinee the eeey ef the eeeeeet extteet :3? the eecetzht, E de net know:

whether that bank account was epezzee "£5 eariéer to the formatien ef the firm er Subsequent to it... The Chartered Accountarat was not furnishing the balance T. on some pretext er the other. Th-'e"~._"*.V ' petitioner has not issued any Eegal notice"*te.j.___i' 5 _._ him in that regard. E do not remembe"r'fereV"' haw marry baiarrce sheets were si_g.t1eé~».Vb"y--.V" . the petitioners. I de not remem«be§ for ?"ri3'§-"" V' many years she has been_rejfu'seedA'them balance sheet. Petitioner e<ske.di"re$perrcE--eeet. " A T to furnish the acceuets after._2=years'-hfrom ; the date of fermatiors-pT~..the firm.' _et;t*:h'e' respondent did not ftzrtt§es.h"i*:._ Theeetitéener has not issuedersy ieg-a%_A"not'i-<:_e derr2'evndi.r.'g the acceents. ' _P'e'.rit§r:'herVE$--«t3et"*~Income Tax assessee. I cairrnot "saV§;r'ivwheti2.e%r*» the firm was fiiing the vi_nt":0.rrre'__ tex-""-rettirfne. The petitioner' .:oht3ribu'te-ti .Rs..j5Q,O0Q/4 by cash tewarﬁs t:}:h.e formatiién df_the"f%.r.m. No iegai raotiee'wat:...é.sst;reti.__be.forr.e §Tiiing»ef the stzit." His evizeieheei' thet the petitioner was aware she wasrefused statement within 2; years ef the r:e.nstitr;r4t&0.e the aéiieged firm. Ne eetiee has been '-éssiﬂreie t.E'ii=E the rretieeiiéin Q§iESti{}nD The eecerte aspect is, ehe L-..herse%f._iE'e..eeréV"t-%_rtr;ome tax aeeeessee and theee recerﬁe are rteit-..__etre,éie'_5e7ij'e;i Had they been etzeiéaete, it 'ereete have r;er;eei.'e:dAA:'ae te whether erre waned tteve shewe; Rs.§i3_g®8®;"~ A' -.te:eaE'ee eerttrtbutierr te tee eartnetshée eerteesrsrzi E7 t/'egetar1'an Restaurant; treating the firm as a proprietary concern. If he was Se conscious ef the fact that it vra'::ta partnership concern, he has not expiaieed how he~«~eeeEd*ﬁ'jeV"' returns in the name of the proprietary r:c>n-::er_.rV1__.»'~--.,.

14. Be that as it may. He has a:so:"'iss'ue;:r_a'~ dated 7.1.1996 certifying it atprepr§ete'ry».i.':ee.n.Cern.

That is not in dispute. _Ih factA,..s§gh_atrrLre .arid.'e§§§vVf%r;3r: that document is admitted vtbdiépe it had to be seer: whether" that it was a the Act. As there is serious..di_sVp:.rt'e:'1*1t;h.e be whether Seetien 8 woeid 'parties to seek reference regarding"e_rbitVraVtieh*..: " weli settled when there is a A_ serVE.»a.t,;svd'§sptrte existence ef the partnership firm the reeiurtt d.ea3p%:3.r;"'-with the appircatien trrreer Sectrorr 8 of the /i&r:t"$">;as'r2ef::errr'peter:ee tr: decide the éssee, er, wrzéeh creed Q ee adﬁrdprcated by the ervéé eeurt er competent jerésdéctrerz, V' eedp'e'e.§aEry errrer: freee is aiéeeeer :1; :~ *7 K 2,' /;

15. Reference Couid be to the scope of Seetion 8 of the Arbitration Act. It reads thus:

"8. Power to refer parties arbitration where there is was': I arbitration agreement -~ (1) A juC§§i__ci'a'i«..'_'-----.f. ' authority before which an action is br'e.ugt1'tr._ "

in a matter which is the subject'»o.ff~.an~._ « arbitration agreement sha'H',"'if. a'..pa.r.ty"~so appiies not later than when rstijbéhitting"hi<s~7'=-._ first statement on the stsbstence "of the " ' dispute, refer the p:§rt.é__es to'7a_rb:trat'=.o'n 3 (2) The apoiication referred t0._Aif:"§' sub- section (1) shaji raot*b'eente»rtained'u.o!.ess it is accomoahiced ;».by~.__=._th.e_ original arbitration agreer*r:ent5'or __aon'..dt,;ly-.certified CODY tbereof.m~~--.."=' V (3) -:§}3'Crtwit'hsté'r:'1fdir3g...=that"an application

---- --~h_a§~.rb'ee1sa:_rha_d'e__un'de_r_§:.:3b--section (1) and thfa't;g_theI.4 i:..st',:e.' is pending before the ' judEciai'j"-.a_u{:hofrit3r, an arbitration may be «Voomnwermed 'orA"co~z'wtirtued and an atbitral rd rrr_a<i.e;"'_ ~..o/rfraTL'r$;' tioavrirsxroke §e'éi'i:é'oVe 8 there is e DF€~$L2D§OSi'{'.iQE'f about t-..e§:b§rstVe:t§:'e_'%of?'"en_j..erb§trai agreement? to other W(":r%'dS, the oro.yieio,r;. _e4jefo§Eéee ether: there is an aorrrétteo arbitration agree'rreHerttr the Eeogoege of Eeetiorr 8 érrzoéies exéeteeee of f' aﬁbétrei egreereerrt erro there to eotrerro to ghee: when .. __there %s e oéeoote about arbitration agreement; Sectéoe 8 $3 19 still available. with thie prelude, we shall examine tine case laws.

16. Recently in a Case between Vs. MAESTRO ENGINEERS Amp,pfrHEl:zls'V-{I296'9('1V3}_i 'V SCALE 403), the apex ceurt referfing ;t'o an arbitrator and the scheme'lV_0f.__the 'A-rbllitratievielH19-40%, with reference to Section 8, heluljr'-.,:_ 'When there 'aplle.gat4i"eVn"l fraud, seréeus malpracticesV_on" the.-.._Vpa.ft,__'_Qf the resp0nd'ent:je.r.lby jur§§sd'l"cti{3'nV of"'v/hrbltrater -~ Case;."re'la_ti-n.g';'--_ttsj_all'egat'Eovns of fraud and serleqes zfn all pra"t:ti;:e:§f en" vp'artg {if respondents by---.c;pmmi"tt:§.n_g -»._Vrn_alpra--c.t.i_r:es in account :900kslA"an.d_'Eiénanétes of partnership Firm ~« ';~2.i.:c';1 sltuat'r'e._nl ca'r;r.tA_c5ntly'be settled in Court thrpugn fzs.rt'lz.eram:e"'ef" detailed evldenee by either parties 5 'Et.._'canr:ot be properly gone into big Arbitrator.' "'ReFere:'%-tie Qmadeyenltnis paint te paregraehs 7'}, 11 and 3.3 1 r~..v££§:._é-rifzl' ere.' e;:tVre§:fteé rsereu nd er:

_.'*Z?",_'4i'.»§z*: ear Qeénrner the ennteetéen er' the x regpendente relatlng te the gurisdictien ef the

-,__:'%;rieltr"ater ta neeide e dl$§t,sl:€: eeetelnéng tn a matter 5%' tree prenertéen enezﬁe he ugneén, anew at the raeie eneé cérmreeteneee cs? ine ease. Tee High Court in Eire émpugeeef juegrnent nae ngrztras held that ernce the eeee relatee tn aliegatlens ef fraud ann seriens "7 ~':3é'-W"

'Z9 melpractices on the part of the respondents, such a situetien can oniy be settled in curt through furtherance of detaiied evidence by either' parties and such a situation cannot property goee into by the Arbitraterf' "11. In our view and reiying en the ;a,fQfe.sa'id.''~ ' observations on' this Cdurt.;%e._t4he _'afc>'t'eis';'.ici"' decision and going by the ijatio_of«-the a'be_ve.--u._ ' rnentiened case, the facts; etitiie iipfesent case does not warrant: the matter to be; tried and decided b the Aib_it'.=ator, "raﬁthe_r'fer'-,_t'i':e... furtherance of justice, E"t:.,st;eeid bettie-id iii; a court of iaw which would _be_ mere cempetegnt and have the__"mee_ns _t<:;de'<:E.de such a compiiceted mattteﬁ f';--.iéave'%ix2ing'»._ various questions and issttes t_aisec3'«.,in~..Ith_e--~ present disputeg' This "v§ew.'i«.h.a_s '.i:>.eé'n further E3E1UﬁCiVaf£t'_f§E' 'and:-.afe'iia*':"ee'd sby7th.é.s.§Ceurt in the deeisirm i2f..'fH3'i'yfe_n'c2..Teiecem Ltd. v. Stenite Ind=ds5ttfi_e.s (I'f'adie')CLtd ' "

"13_'.i"WVe _a{-lei in:i:t_3nsoeaVnce with the above- ';referredcj"e._<:tsi§o':1_made by the High Court in the' %Cenecetjeed'~~._A_tta«atter, IN the present diispuite faced. by 'es, the appeiiant had made

-. Set"i€)tE_S 'e1ivegatie'ns against the reseendents eiieging~~..h§m to Cemnntt maépracttcess in the i,.,"nac<:z:;unt beeiis and manieuiate the finances ef-the. partnership firm, which tn our epinien, * ._"'t:_erinet be proeeriy deait with by the '3eeee§ent 't*2_z'%e_%t:f;,alteti es sech; the High Ceett wee V.3f.es;';:§%et§ in dismissing tee petitéeri ef the te refer the matte? to at:

" _ Eftreitrateiz Etxi this eeneeetiee, it Es teietzeet Vite refer the eeseezetiee teeee by the tétgti ﬁeett in Ets eeeegnee jeegteeetf' BE Whéie renditicm of that judgment, the apex ceurt tsas retieé on its eartier decision reported in AIR 1962 SC 406 whereie it was iraeld 'there is no doubt that where serious of fraud are made against as party and the M Charged with fraud desires that the 't%?atter".4sh;:t{(tr".£2e: 'triec}ﬁ in open court, that wauid be a' suffit:ferit_gfauseé' for the net to order an arbitratien agreeftzent thobel -filed 'net to 'V make the reference..~;...f S.:.1C'tr"_fe3IIegati0rr$"'AA at' fraud, manipulation or temperthQ.r_'Ca'n--,ein;iy into in a fuii~ ﬂedged enqu:'ry42j:;:/'~the V'

17. In an{>tl're"r. MAIR 2903 scw 3558 and Are 2902.Si:zeéjsz,'"rt.::§s----h'erd as under:: 'Th"e.._4Eavv gove=rn§ng' the subject is an issue

-..w%":icﬁ coma" be"-termed as an isssue reiating , E0 3 €E"is3;};,:te'. betweerz the parties on ' 1-.».'§eCeL:Aet§eg 'er otherwise. Whiie the ..pe:i:iTt%,eTe£_=;r referred ts arbitratéonmbut when * ¢r;tf§:..ea*e déseute regarééng exégtergee of en efgrjeetétaeszt, thee the eetéeus mature at §s'e:._é;i..- am ether Eeeee ear: eeiy be game mm H %:>.y the eiazéi cteert ef comeeteet gurésﬁictéeeq' V' are eetéetéed tee zjietum et tee aeex geert eeeiéee éze tee of thég ease. it ie Emmateréaé wirsat :3 the nature 9? me\..;Edence in support at the aiiegatéerz, get the very mature "N K, 22 of defence raieed reveals an enquiry is necessary to examine the aiiegation of fraud. "That is not the scape of Section 8. The ceert caneot, whiie enterta§n§eg4:"'i.ari eppiicatioe under Section 8 ef the Act, go into _ as to whether fraud is proved er not. re"

examine existence of the arbitratien :a..g.rfees?ai:e:jt'--a'ra~{i"~-eiAthVe:n.' enforce ii: by referring the diemste toithei'ereit.;'a'{e%:,4_V_. ii

18. As ebserved eazfiier, th_e_rufe»._i_s;~._ea pi"e~-~€3:u_pp§:§?sition of undisputed arbitrai agfeeﬁdeiwt, Lgei'e$'s:it--.,exEsts, the court wiii not have _t~E';e_ po};'a'e'r»--VﬁQ Vrefefi idiepute Etseii' for aa'bEtratien.__a ~ 1

19. Befere Ce_ric.iViz.d§r;<;_1_:f%t' is rieceesary to refer to the groL§.:;Q_ree'e::iji:ie" git-eaudvings. The coeteetien ef the §eVtééVi'ee"'er '"ég~i{_ thefveiiiiiie ne pieaﬁieg to the effect Peaifve! ifeg?e:ee.e'e{?' Qjesieureei is e eropeetery eencem. it ie ef no aeeii §iée:_a%';ee eetéeoeer hag eiéegee exéeienee ef the per%;eez7_s?2ip firm eee tinereferea eerdee wee en hes" ﬁe '' -.,veeé<ee%i*sE"; éika "Feet eeert, eeeeeedené eee 'ia§<ee e eefeeee V. ._..€het it is e ﬁeeged eee eerieeeiiee eeeuezeei. We eeeeei I ég 23 expect evidence ef proof in the negative. It is the eetitiener whe has te lay greet,

20. In this View of the matter, I fine the triaglhtie-£.1_rt._::

serieusly erred in Commenting on the cendvuetjfevf hotd that petitienefs evidence is seffic.i.eéIj1ft;.u'--trIr;4.,feCt"weA_' t:ethf find eiear tiit in favour of the' p._etitiohnea4"tn ren'{iIVti.e_h of; the order. There is no ciispassione'tev«.Vjizdtciot§s--ehgfjroeeh to the materiai evidence cortse_tjt«*en1fV:VtQV--e.?'tt'i.eh:the Empegrhhed order has been Dassed' I be sustained.

The disputee:fV':e'e;'t--hiership itseif has to be decided: ..i.n'3.tVIr?ge ee:11.;5e.:t_ent"'t§vi"E§ eeurt and unless it is decided, ;;1re:>cee'd'i'hr;js».tin.§fe-r Sectien 8 of the Act cannot resorted 2Q.,.«}g 'tie the rhestritf E ti'-ass the foiiewing Greer:

_ "tftte.§3;Aet~§t§_en is etiewee. The tmpugeee erder is set "e:--s§'{§--.€%'. V""vE5?';éE$f't'§*eVs'V ate resereeé Eiberty te sresert te sueh

-V rehséeegé'-vsetéeééebée tn Eew te €ﬂ'?€}¥'C€ their reseeethze rights, t3:*'t:.t2e eéreumstehees, there is me me: es te eests, Sheer 24 the circumstances, Misc.Cvl.2§916;'O9 does not survive fer consideration and is accordingty dismissed. _..-«,5 §:§::§ ~= vgh* JSSQE m\j

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court