1974 (1) TMI 106

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s. It is a running business. The business was set up by the appellant and the respondent as partners in December 1962. As usual with many partnerships, the partner did not march in step for long Within six months they fell out. On August 22, 1963, they could, however, agree to refer their disputes to the arbitration of two persons, Sri R.N. Sharma and Sri C.M. Sharma. The agreement is in writing. It referred "the disputes of our concern" and gave "the arbitrators full authority to decide our dispute". The arbitrators gave their award on September 20, 1963. They filed the award in the high Court on November, 1963. On September 10, 1964 the respondent filed an application for determining the validity of the agreement and f....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... to express any opinion on the first argument as we are of opinion that the award requires registration and, not being registered, is inadmissible in evidence for the purpose of pronouncing judgment in accordance with it. So we pass on to the remaining two arguments of the appellant. It is well settled now that the share of a partner in the assets of the partnership which has also immovable properties is movable property and the assignment of the share does not require registration under s. 17 Registration Act. (See Ajudhia Parshad Ram Parshad v. Sham Sunder and others (A. I. R. 1947 Lahore 13 at p. 20) Addanki Narayanappal v. Bhaskara Kristappa([1966] 3 S. C. R. 400 at pp. 406 and 407) and Commissioner of Income-tax, west Bengal Calcutta ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....eering Works Rs.514.18 Total ₹ 1924.88 (8) -The factory should not be run by Dr. Ratan Lal Sharma until and unless the payment of the award is not made to Shri Purushottam Harit". The word "not" is a slip here. The parties conceded before the learned Single Judge that the award deals with immovable property worth above ₹ 100/-. So if it is found by us that the award purports to create rights in. the appellant over immovable property, it would require registration under s. 17 Registration Act. (See Satish Kumar and others v. Surinder Kumar and others ([1969] 2 S. C. R. 244 at pp. 251-252). On the dissolution of the partnership or with the retirement of a partner from the partnership the share of the partner i....