LexGAMBHIR MAL PANDIYA versus J. K. JUTE MILLS CO., LTD., KANPUR AND ANOTHER
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
llllt
190
SUPREME OOURT REPORTS [1963)
GAMBfilR MAL PANDIYA
11.
J. K. Jc;TE MILLS 00., LTD.,
KANPUR AND ANOTHER
($. K. DAS, M. HmAYATULLAH and J. C. SHAH, JJ,)
Par1ntr•hi1>-Duru again.t Jlrm-E:ueution
againn
p1rl1Ur not aum"'°"'<i in mil-Liability of aueh par1...,-
Wlldher p1rl111r ean raiae ;....., btt1Dten him.elf and other
parlnera-Gode of Oiml Prottdure, 1908 (Aet 6 of 1908), 0.
21. r. 60(2).
A contract entered into between the
respondent
company and a firm consisting of two partners, T and G, was
signed by T. A dispute relating to the contract wat
referred to arbitration in pursuance of the teryns of the
contract providing for such arbitration, and an award was
given h;i favour of the company. The award was made into a
rule of the court and a decree was· pa1Sed against the firm.
Jn execu lion of the decree the company sought to proceed
against the personal property of G and made an application
for the l•ave of the Court under O. 21, r. 50(2), of the Code
of Civil Procedure. G pleaded that the award and the decree
passed thereon were not binding on him on the grounds, that
'AC other partner who had signed the contract had no autho-
'rity to enter into the agreement ~ontaining the arbitration
clau•e or to refer the dispute to arbitration and that he had
not been served in the proceedings relating to the arbitration.
HtUl, that G was liable for the decree passed against the
firm. A decree passed against a &rm may be executed against
a partner who was not summoned in the suit, but O. 21, r. 50
(2), of the Code of Civil Procedure givca him an opportunity of
showing cause if he disputes.his liability. In such a case he
can prove that he was not a partntt or that he was not a
partner at the time the cause of action accrue~. He can also
quation the decree on the ground of collusion, fraud or the
like, but he cannot have the suit tried over again or arise
lasuca between himself and his other partners.
Jagat Chandra Battadaar;u v. GvHy Baju Ah,...4,
(1926) J.L.R. 53 Cal. 214, In re Malabar Forem &: Rvbbtr Go.
A. I. it. 1932 Bom. 334, Rana Barl:1ahandaa v. Rana a..labdaa,
I. L. R. [19561Bom.193, 0. JI. 8hahani v. Ha""'1 'fradif19
Co., '(194+)51 C. W. N. 488, JloliarariuJla{lllako K-M Dalli
•
2 S.C.R.
SUPREM."E OOURT REPORTS
191
v. M. Ramnarain Private Ltd.,
I.LR. [1959] Bom. 1468 and
KuppuBu>ami v. Polite Picturu, I.L.R. [ 1955]
Mad. ll06,
approved.
Bhagvan v. B iraji, A. 1.\.t. 1932 Born. 516, Oeoverji Varjang
v. Oooverbai NagBey,
A.LR. 1940 Bom.
330 and In re
Polaram Nathmull l.L.R. [1939] 2 Cal. 312, disapproved.
M un•ter v. Ooz, ( 188.5) 10 App Gas-680 Da"iB v. H 11.l.an &
Oo [1903] l:K.B .. 854 and'Weir & Oo. v. Mo Vioar & Oo.
[1925) 2 K:B. 117, relied. on.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDidTION: Civil Appeal
No. 19 of 60.
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated
September 25, 1957, of the Allahabad High Court,
in Civil ReviEion No. 815 of 1955.
M. O. Setalvad, Atwrney-Ge:neraJ, for ln1Ua and
B. P .. Maheshwari, for the appellants.
S. M. Sik1i, Advocate-General for the State of
.Punjab and K. P. Gupta, for respondent No. l.
1962. April 17. The Judgment of the Court
•·vas deliv.ered by
HIDAYATULLAH, J.-This is an .appeal on a
certificate granted by the High Court of Allahabad
against an order dated September 25,. 1957, dis-
missing a revision petition filed
by the present
appellant.
The facts of the case are very simple. Messrs.
J. K. Jute Mille Co. Ltd. (the answering respon-
,f
dents), entered into a contract with a firm, Messrs.
Birdhi Chand Sumer Mal, for the supply of certain
articles. The contract was entered intq ~y 0ne
Seth Tikam Chand; a partner in the firm. One
of the terms of the contriiot.was that in a case of
ii dispute between the parties, itwouid be referred
tc the Merchants Chamber of Commerce, Kanpur,
,
for arbitration. It appears that a dispute arose,
' --; which was referred to the Chamber of Commerce,
19~1
GambhlrMa/
P.ndi.Ja
v.
J.E. Jule Mills
Co. Lid. Eanpur
Hidayatulla \ J.
·J96t
Gomiltir Mall
Pondi,12
v.
J, IC Jui. Mills
Co. Ltd. Kanpur
HidG.]Gfsdlah J.
192
SUPREME OOURT REPORTS [1963]
and an award in favour of the Mills was given on
January 8, 1947.
Two years later, the award was
made into a rule of the Court, and a decree follow-
ed in favour of the Mills.
The firm of Birdhi
Chand Sumer Mal consisted of two partners; the
other partner was one Mr. Pandiya, the predeces-
sor-in-interest of Seth Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.