KANTHILAL D GANDHI Vs. K PEDDARANGAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) the appellant is aggrieved by the Order of the trial court staying the proceedings in suit o.s. No. 290 of 1986 filed by him under Section 34 of the arbitration ACT ('the act' for short).

(2.) the plaintiff-appellant has filed a suit for dissolution of afirm which was constituted under a partnership deed dated 5-2-980 which was subsequently amended on 19-6-1980. That firm is an unregistered firm. The respondent-defendant on putting his appearance filed an application under Section 34 of the ACT seeking stay of the proceedings of the suit on the ground that clause 13 of the partnership deed provides for referring all disputes between the partners for arbitration and that he is ready and willing to do all things necessary for proper conduct of the arbitration as per the agreement. The appellant opposed that application on the grounds that as the firm was not registered the application was barred under Section 69(3) of the Partnership Act and that in any event in view of the serious allegations of fraud made by him this was not a fit case where the court should exercise its discretion and stay further proceedings in the suit. The trial court has negatived both the contentions taken by the appellant and has stayed further proceedings in the suit.

(3.) there is no dispute about the fact that clause 13 of the partnership deed provides for arbitration in respect of disputes which may arise between the partners. Clause 13 reads as hereunder: