BHAGWAN DAS GOEL (DEAD) THROUGH HIS LRS. AND ORS. vs. PYARE KISHAN AGARWAL

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL  APPEAL No.3399 OF 2019 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.21469 of 2012) Bhagwan Das Goel(Dead) Through His L.Rs. & Ors. ….Appellant(s) VERSUS Pyare Kishan Agarwal       ….Respondent(s)                   J U D G M E N T Abhay Manohar Sapre, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. This   appeal   is   directed   against   the   final judgment   and   order   dated   14.05.2012   passed   by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Writ Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by ASHOK RAJ SINGH Date: 2019.05.16 14:17:17 IST Reason: C.   No.14839/1993   whereby   the   High   Court 1 dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellants herein   and   upheld   the   order   dated   18.03.1993 passed   by   the   Civil   Judge,   Jhansi   in   O.S. No.140/1992. 3. A few facts need mention hereinbelow for the disposal of this appeal, which involves a short point. 4. The appellants are the legal representatives of the original defendants and the respondent herein is the plaintiff of the suit out of which this appeal arises. 5. The   respondent   filed   an   application   under Section   20   of   the   Arbitration   Act,   1940   (since repealed)   against   the   appellants’   predecessors­in­ title. The application was founded on the allegations inter alia  that there was a partnership between the appellants’   predecessors­in­title   with   the respondent   on   05.07.1960   by   name   "Gupta   Bus Service".  2 6. However,   the   disputes   arose   between   the partners   of   this   firm(Gupta   Bus   Service),   which resulted   in   its   dissolution.   It   was   alleged   that Clause   11   of   the   Partnership   Deed   provides   for resolution of disputes arising out of the partnership between   the   parties   by   an   Arbitrator.   The respondent, therefore, prayed that an Arbitrator be appointed in terms of Clause 11 of the Partnership Deed for deciding the disputes, which have arisen between the parties relating to the partnership.  7. The   appellants   (defendants)   on   being   served raised   a   preliminary   objection   contending   therein that since the partnership in question on which the application under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940   was   founded   was   an   “unregistered partnership",   therefore,   in   the   light   of   the   bar contained under Section 69 (3) of the Partnership Act, the application filed by the respondent was not 3 maintainable,   therefore,   it   was   liable   to   be dismissed as such. 8. The   Civil   Judge   by   order   dated   18.03.1993 overruled   the   objection   raised   by   the   appellants (defendants) and held that the application filed by the   respondent   (plaintiff)   is   maintainable.   The appellants (defendants) felt aggrieved and filed writ petition   in   the   High   Court   at   Allahabad   under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.  9. By impugned order, the High Court dismissed the writ petition and upheld the order of the Civil Judge, which has given rise to filing of this appeal by way of special leave by the defendants in this Court. 10. So,   the   short   question,   which   arises   for consideration in this appeal, is whether the High Court   was   justified   in   dismissing   the   appellants’ writ petition. 4 11. Having   heard   the   learned   counsel   for   the parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we are inclined to allow this appeal and while setting aside the impugned order remand the case to the High Court for deciding the writ petition afresh on merits in the light of the observations made  infra . 12. In our considered view,   the need to remand the case has occasioned because we find that the High Court did not decide the issue, which was the subject matter of the writ petition, keeping in view the  law  laid down by this  Court in  the case    of Krishna Motor Service by its Partners vs. H.B. Vittala Kamath , 1996 (10) SCC 88. 13. In   our   view,   the   High   Court   should   have noticed   the   aforementioned   decision   and   decided the   question   accordingly   in   the   light   of   law   laid down therein. The High Court unfortunately did not take   note   of   the   said   decision   and   has   thus 5 committed   an   error   requiring   interference   of   this Court. 14. It is for this reason, we are of the considered view that the matter should be remitted to the High Court for deciding the writ petition afresh on merits keeping in view the law laid down by this Court in the case of  Krishna Motor Service  (supra). 15. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal succeeds and is accordingly allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The case is remanded to the High Court for deciding the writ petition, out of which this   appeal   arises,   afresh   on   merits   as   observed above. 16. Since we have formed an opinion to remand the case to the High Court instead of deciding the issue for the first time in this appeal on facts, we refrain   ourselves   from   exercising   the   issue   on merits. The High Court will, therefore, decide the 6 matter strictly in accordance with law uninfluenced by any observations made in the impugned order and this order.  17.   Since the matter is quite old, we request the High   Court   to   dispose   of   the   writ   petition   as expeditiously   as   possible   preferably   within   six months.                                      .………...................................J.                                     [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]                                           …...……..................................J.              [DINESH MAHESHWARI] New Delhi; April 04, 2019 7