JUDGMENT
Vikramajit Sen, J.
1. The anguish of the Supreme Court articulated in Guru Nanak Foundation v. Rattan Singh and Sons, , is as true today as it was so many years ago. D.A. Desai, J. said that:
“Interminable, time consuming, complex and expensive Court procedures impelled jurists to search for an alternative Forum, less formal, more effective and speedy for resolution of disputes, avoiding procedural claptrap and this led them to Arbitration Act, 1940 (“Act” for short). However, the way in which the proceedings under the Act are conducted and without exception challenged in Courts, has made Lawyers laugh and legal philosophers weep. Experience shows and law reports bear ample testimony that the proceedings under that Act have become highly technical accompanied by unending prolixity, at every stage providing a legal trap to the unwary. Informal Forum chosen by the parties for expeditious disposal of their disputes has by the decisions of the Court been clothed with ‘legalese’ of unforeseeable complexity.”
2. The present case is yet one more such example. The partnership deed between the parties contained an Arbitration Clause yet it required the petitioner to file a petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, being Suit No. 1048/1994, before arbitral proceedings could be agreed to be undertaken, vide orders dated 17.5.1995. The Arbitrator could enter upon the Reference only on 25.7.1997. A perusal of the proceedings before the Arbitrator will disclose that there were as many as thirty seven (37) hearings and approximately twenty (20) adjournments were taken by the respondent/objector for one reason or the other.
3. The Arbitrator has published an Award which contains the reasons which prevailed on him for making it. It s well-settled that the Arbitrator is the master of facts, and that while adjudicating upon Objections to the Award, the Court would not reappraise the evidence, unless the conclusions arrived at are wholly perverse. On the basis of the evidence the Arbitrator has concluded that a person called ‘Uncleji’ had invested Rs. 2,26,000/- in the business as against Rs. 1,76,000/- by the respondent. Keeping in perspective that a portion of the subject investment had been made by the husband of the petitioner by cheque and disbelieving the version of the respondent that it had been contributed by different persons, the Arbitrator has arrived at a conclusion in favor of the petitioner. This conclusion is neither fanciful nor perverse and thus cannot be interfered with even if the Court were to prefer another view, which I most certainly do not. The Arbitrator infact observed that the plea regarding the personal of ‘Uncleji’ had been put forward only at the stage of evidence, and was clearly an afterthought. Inspite of finding that the amount of investment was Rs. 2,26,000/- the Arbitrator has only awarded Rs. 2,22,000-/ since it was the latter amount that was mentioned in the notice. No profits on the partnership venture have been granted. The argument of learned Counsel for the respondent that there was no basis for awarding Rs. 2,22,000/- is palpably frivolous and incorrect.
4. It was next contended on behalf of the respondent/objector that the Arbitrator had misconducted the proceedings since he had not allowed sufficient opportunity to the respondent/objector, to produce the Chartered Accountant as the latter’s witness. It should be recalled that the proceedings were inordinately protracted owing to the most frequent adjournments claimed by the respondent/objector The Chartered Accountant was not mentioned in the List of Witnesses. There was no legal impropriety in the Arbitrator declining the prayer for yet another adjournment for producing the Chartered Accountant in these circumstances. The respondent/objector’s case is that the petitioner was the ‘sleeping partner’, which is also the petitioner’s contention. The onus lay heavily on the respondent/objector to prove the partnership accounts, which he should have easily discharged, but has failed altogether to do.
5. The partnership deed mentions that the firm would continue at the will of its partners. The respondent/objector’s contention that the Award is contrary to Section 43 of the Arbitration Act is without any legal foundation. The Arbitrator has taken into consideration the issuance by the respondent/objector of a notice dated 16.2.1994 and has treated the firm to have dissolved from that date. He has not granted the petitioner’s prayer for rendition of accounts. The Arbitrator has declined to grant any amount towards the petitioner’s claim of Rs. 2,50,000/- for share of profits and Rs. 1,00,000/- as share in the goodwill.
6. There is no justification for the respondent/objector’s contention that the Arbitrator has dismissed his counter claim for no apparent reasons. The Arbitrator has stated that the respondent/objector was the managing partner and the firm was running under his control. He has further noticed that the respondent/objector was in breach of the obligations in Clauses 13 and 14 of the partnership deed. He has further observed, in this context, that the Accounts have not been proved and are unaudited. Neither the partners not the Chartered Accountant have signed the Balance Sheet as on 31st March, 1995. It is not the obligation of the Arbitrator, legally or for any other reason, to ensure that documents are proved and that witnesses should be examined even iff efforts in this direction are woefully not taken by the party concerned.
7. Mindful of the fact that there is no infirmity in the Award, the respondent/ objector has also levelled a charge of misconduct on the Arbitrator. It has been averred in paragraph XI of the objections, that the Counsel of the petitioner had “personal family relationship” with the Arbitrator. Unfortunately, an affidavit in support has not been filed, otherwise it would have been a fit case to refer the matter for prosecution for perjury. Keeping in mind the totally unsubstantiated allegation I was inclined to initiate Contempt of Court proceedings. The respondent is stated to be a Law Graduate, and it would be fair to assume that this accusation has been baselessly hurled to delay proceedings, and defer payments under the Award. In this light, therefore, an interference with the judicial process has been occasioned. However, this course of action is not being taken in the expectation that the Award, which is now being decreed, is immediately paid.
8. In these circumstances, the objections are without any merit and are dismissed with costs of Rupees twenty thousand. There is no reason or cause to remit the Award or set it aside. The Award is made Rule of the Court, and judgment is pronounced in accordance with it.
9. Decree-sheet be drawn up accordingly.
10. Objections dismissed.