THE HANUMAN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE LTD. Vs. PARMESHRI LAL CO.
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
The Hanuman Chamber Of Commerce Ltd.
Parmeshri Lal Co.
Click here to view full judgement.
Harnam Singh, J. -
(1.) TO appreciate the point arising in this case the facts must be set out in some detail.
(2.) ON 6 -11 -1947, Firm Parmeshri Lal Company instituted the suit out of which these proceedings have arisen for the recovery of Rs. 95,000 from Hanuman Chamber of Commerce Limited and Firm Goenka Brothers. Defendant 1 appeared at the trial on 9 -2 -1948, and applied under Section 34 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940, hereinafter referred to as the Act, for the stay of proceedings. On 24 -11 -1948, the trial Court ordered:
Without prejudice to the decision of the Defendant's application under Section 34, Arbitration Act, the Defendant should file his written statement on 10 -12 -48. The parties should also file their documents and list of reliance by that date.
On 10 -12 -1948, Defendant 1 applied for the review of the order passed by the trial Court on 24 -11 -1948, calling upon the Defendant to file the written statement on that date. On 16 -12 -1948, the trial Court, however, disallowed the application made by the Defendant for the review of the order passed by that Court on 24 -11 -1948.
Hanuman Chamber of Commerce Limited now applies under Section 44, Punjab Courts Act, 1918, for the revision of the order passed by the trial Court on 16 -12 -1948.
(3.) MR . Daya Kishan Mahajan, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, contends that Section 34 of the Act does not contemplate an enquiry for deciding an application for stay. He then contends that it was not open to the trial Court to call upon the Defendant to put in a written statement before deciding the partition under Section 34 of the Act.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.