1991 PLP 924 (CLC)

Plaintiff No.2 in person. Nemo for Defendants. Date of hearing: 20th November, 1990. Arbitrator Mr. Mohammad Akhtar, Advocate has filed this Award under section 14 of the Arbitration Act. Usual notices were issued to the parties which were served upon* the plaintiff on 9‑1‑1989 and on the defendant on 8‑2‑1989. Plaintiffs did not file any objections, where defendant riled objections on 28‑2‑1989 supported with an affidavit. The objections of the defendant in brief are that the defendant had not referred the matter to the, Arbitrator. It was only the plaintiffs, who had appointed the Arbitrator. According to the Partnership Deed which contained arbitration clause, two Arbitrators were to be appointed one by each party, whereas only the plaintiffs appointed the Arbitrator. The defendant had neither appointed him as Arbitrator nor had he consented to the appointment. A notice was served upon the defendant by the plaintiffs to which he replied. Thereafter defendant received notice from the Arbitrator. When the defendant appeared before the Arbitrator, he informed him that the plaintiffs had already obtained ex parte Award. The plaintiffs riled reply to the above objections of the defendant alongwith counter‑affidavit wherein they have alleged that the reference to the Arbitrator was in accordance with the Deed of Partnership. Notice was issued to the defendant by the Arbitrator to appear and make any objections to the arbitration. The counsel of the opponent appeared but raised no objections and submitted that the notice which was issued to the Advocate on 20‑5‑1988 may be treated as reply. During the proceedings nobody appeared from the defendant's side, before the Arbitrator, hence he had no option but to pronounce the ex parte Award. The defendant as well as his Advocate have chosen to remain absent on the, previous hearing i.e. on 30‑10‑1990. The case, was however, adjourned at the request of plaintiff. Today also the defendant and his counsel are absent. The defendant has not led any evidence whatsoever in support of his objections. The Arbitration Agreement contains clause about reference‑to the Arbitration any dispute or difference which may arise between the parties or their authorised representative in respect of Partnership Deed and business affairs of the parties. The Arbitrator Mr. Mohammad Akhtar, on having been appointed as an Arbitrator, gave notice to the defendant, but he neither appointed his Arbitrator nor did he appear before the Arbitrator in spite of service of notice. Hence the Arbitrator had no option but to proceed ex parte which he did. The Arbitrator dissolved the Partnership Firm and directed that assets of Partnership which are under attachment and seat under section 145, Cr.P.C. be distributed amongst the partners in accordance with their shares in profit and loss after an inventory of the same is prepared and same is valued, in presence of both the parties, on desealing of the same after removal of the attachment. The partnership is admitted. It is settled law that when there are differences between the Partners, dissolution and rendition of account is the only remedy. Hence I do not find any substance in the objections raised by the defendant, nor do I find any illegality on the face of the Award. 1, therefore, make the Award rule of the Court and pass preliminary decree in accordance therewith and appoint Mr. Bashir Ahmed Memon, Official Assignee, as Commissioner to comply with the directions of the Arbitrator regarding the final disposition of the assets of the Partnership. H.B.T./W‑60/K. Order accordingly.