THE HANUMAN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE LTD. Vs. PARMESHRI LAL CO.

JUDGEMENT

(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:

(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.