1997 JTR(Del) 1002
1998 2 AD(Del) 104 ; 1998 1 CLT 48 ; 1998 71 DLT 76 ; 1998 47 DRJ 859 ; 1998 1 RAJ 138
High Court Of Delhi
PIYARE LAL BHASIN - Appellant
Versus
CHAMAN LAL BHASIN - Respondent
ORIGINAL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION 38 of 1979
Decided On : 12/15/1997
Act Referred :ARBITRATION ACT : S.8
Arbitration Act, 1940 - Section 8 — Appointment of — Arbitrator — Existence of dispute — Dissolution of partnership — The disputes stood settled between the parties — Petition is not maintainable.
Held:
It appears that Shri J.N. Sehgal who was the brother-in-law of the parties had intervened and possibly with his efforts the settlement had been arrived at and the papers were signed. The petitioner as already noticed has admitted having signed the dissolution deed. From this it cannot be said definitely that the documents were signed before or after 24.1.1977. It could be that the documents had been signed by the petitioner but intimation was not received by respondent No. 1 when he had written this letter. The document after they were signed and executed will relate back from the date it was agreed by (sic) parties to be effective. On the basis of the material on record, I do not find any reason to disbelieve the testimony of DW4 and DW5 that the partnership deed Ex. DW4/A is the photocopy of the dissolution deed executed by the petitioner and the respondents and the original dissolution deed had remained in the possession of Shri P.L. Bhasin which has not been produced by him for obvious reasons. With the execution of dissolution, accounts were settled and assets divided mutually. Thus, the disputes stood settled as agreed in this dissolution deed. Issue No. 1 is, accordingly, decided in the affirmative and in favor of the respondents.
Held:
It appears that Shri J.N. Sehgal who was the brother-in-law of the parties had intervened and possibly with his efforts the settlement had been arrived at and the papers were signed. The petitioner as already noticed has admitted having signed the dissolution deed. From this it cannot be said definitely that the documents were signed before or after 24.1.1977. It could be that the documents had been signed by the petitioner but intimation was not received by respondent No. 1 when he had written this letter. The document after they were signed and executed will relate back from the date it was agreed by (sic) parties to be effective. On the basis of the material on record, I do not find any reason to disbelieve the testimony of DW4 and DW5 that the partnership deed Ex. DW4/A is the photocopy of the dissolution deed executed by the petitioner and the respondents and the original dissolution deed had remained in the possession of Shri P.L. Bhasin which has not been produced by him for obvious reasons. With the execution of dissolution, accounts were settled and assets divided mutually. Thus, the disputes stood settled as agreed in this dissolution deed. Issue No. 1 is, accordingly, decided in the affirmative and in favor of the respondents.
G.R.CHHABRA, N.K.THANAI, P.S.MAHENDRA
J. B. Goel, J.
( 1 ) IT appears that Shri J. N. Sehgal who was the brother-in-law of the parties had intervened and possibly with his efforts the settlement had been arrived at and the papers were signed. The petitioner as already noticed has admitted having signed the dissolution deed. From this it cannot be said definitely that the documents were signed before or after 24. 1. 1977. It could be that the documents had been signed by the petitioner but intimation was not received by respondent No. 1 when he had written this letter. The document after they were signed and executed will relate back from the date it was agreed by the parties to be effective. On the basis of the material on record, I do not find any reason to disbelieve the testimony of DW4 and DW5 that the partnership deed Ex. DW4/a is the photocopy of the dissolution deed executed by the petitioner and the respondents and the original dissolution deed had remained in the possession of Shri P. L. Bhasin which has not been produced by him for obvious reasons. With the execution of dissolution, accounts were settled and assets divided mutually. Thus, the disputes stood settled as agreed in this dissolution deed. Issue No. 1 is, accordingly, decided in the affirmative and in favour of the respondents.