MANJUNATH V JANNU Vs. LATHA M RALKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is preferred against the order dated 26-9-1987 passed by the learned XIV Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore, in O.S.No. 2479 of 1987. The learned trial Judge has rejected I.A.III filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') for staying further proceedings in the suit and directing the parties to arbitration as per Clause 13 of the Partnership Deed.

(2.) THE suit is filed by one of the partners for dissolution of the partnership firm and for taking accounts. THE first defendant is stated to be the Managing Partner. Fraud and misappropriation of funds are alleged against the first defendant. THE first defendant In addition to filing the Caveat, appeared in the suit on 12-6-1987 through a Counsel and sought for time to file objections to I.A.I. filed by the plaintiff for an order of temporary Injunction. Accordingly, the suit was adjourned to 19-6-1987. On 19-6-1987 I.A.III came to be filed by the first defendant for staying the suit in view of the Arbitration clause contained In the Partnership Deed.

(3.) IN the light of the arguments advanced on both sides, the following points arise for consideration: (1) Whether the trial-Court is justified in holding that the Arbitration Clause contained in the Partnership Deed is vague? (2) Whether the trial-Court is justified in law in holding that the voluntary appearance of the first defendant in the suit and seeking time for filing objections to I.A.No. I filed by the plaintiff for an order of temporary injunction does not amount to submitting to the jurisdiction of the Court for the purpose of adjudication of the suit? (3) What is the effect of filing of written statement by defendants 2 to 4 on the right of the first defendant to enforce the Arbitration Clause? Point No. 1: