JUDGMENT - Dr. B.P. SARAF, J.:---By this appeal the appellants seek to challenge the order dated 30th June, 1999 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the Arbitration petition of the appellants by which the award of the arbitrator was sought to be challenged on the ground of misconduct. 2. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellants who submits that in the instant case the award is vitiated because of non-compliance of the provisions of section 48 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932. The learned Counsel submits that the umpire failed to take into consideration section 48 of the Indian Partnership Act and effect of non-compliance of the same. 3. We have carefully considered the above submissions. We have perused the award as also the judgment of the learned Single Judge rejecting the arbitration petition. The learned Single Judge has considered the above submission of the appellants. He however, found that there was no non-compliance of section 48 of the Indian Partnership Act because the appellant had himself agreed to settlement of accounts by a mode different than the one set out in section 48. Section 48 of the Indian Partnership Act reads as follows: "48. Mode of settlement of accounts between partners.---In setting the accounts of a firm after dissolution, the following rules shall, subject to agreement by the partners, be observed:- (a) Losses, including deficiencies of capital, shall be paid first out of profits, next out of capital, and lastly, if necessary, by the partners individually in the proportions in which they were entitled to share profits; (b) the assets of the firm, including any sums contributed by the partners to make up deficiencies of capital, shall be applied in the following manner and order:- (i) in paying the debts of the firm to third parties; (ii) in paying to each partner rateably what is due to him from the firm for advances as distinguished from capital; (iii) in paying to each partner rateably what is due to him on account of capital; and (iv) the residue, if any, shall be divided among the partners in the proportions in which they were entitled to share profits." 4. Law is well-settled that the mode of settlement of accounts between the parties set out in section 48 of the Indian Partnership Act is subject to agreement by the parties. Law is well-settled that the mode of settlement of accounts between the parties set out in section 48 of the Indian Partnership Act is subject to agreement by the parties. The parties may agree that the mode prescribed by section 48 need not be followed with regard to settlement of accounts between the partners. 5. Identical controversy came up before the Supreme Court in (Asandas Mitharam Narsinghani v. Tekchand Mitharam Sevakramani)1, 1993(3) S.C.C. 110 The Supreme Court held: "Section 48 of the Act prescribes the mode of settlement of accounts between the parties. The section, however, states that the mode prescribed therein is 'subject to agreement by the parties', in other words, the parties may agree that the mode prescribed by section 48 need not be followed with regard to settlement of accounts between the partners." 6. In view of the above, we do not find any merits in the appeal. This appeal is, therefore, dismissed at the admission stage itself. Appeal dismissed.