NARESH CHAND Vs. RAM PARSHAD AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision on behalf of Naresh Chand, the plaintiff, is directed against an order dated January 31, 1979, passed by the Additional District Judge, Kapurthala, whereby he stayed the suit under Sec. 34 of the Arbitration Act The suit for dissolution of partnership and rendition of accounts was being tried by the Senior Sub -Judge, Kapurthala, who by his order dated October 10, 1977, dismissed the application filed by the defendants for the stay of the proceedings.

(2.) The partnership related to the carrying on of an agency business of the Indian Oil Corporation. The business started at a time when the plaintiff was and the arbitration clause as reproduced in the order of the lower appellate Court is to the following effect:

(3.) The main contention raised by the (sic) to the suit was that the partnership had already been dismissed with effect from April 1, 1973. The suit was filed on September 28, 1976, in which the application for stay was filed by the defendants on December 6, 1976. It is being contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that no such dispute had arisen between the parties on the basis of which arbitration could proceed. The most controversial fact is on this score whether the partnership is still a running business or was dissolved on a date alleged by the defendants. A dispute, therefore, certainly exists on account of which reference to arbitrator is required. Furthermore, according to arbitration agreement, when there is any claim in relation to the partnership business it has to be referred to arbitration. The petitioner has sought remedy for obtaining payment of certain sums of money after the rendition of accounts. He has, therefore, claimed some amount and that claim can only be decided by the arbitrator and not the Court.