G L SINGH Vs. SURJIT KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act filed by the defendant. The plaintiffs have filed a reply to this application contesting the same. The suit of the plaintiff is for partition of property No. K-72 situated in the Manufacturers' Co-operative Industrial Estate Limited, Udyog Nagar, Rohtak Road. Delhi-41. The suit plot had been allotted to a firm styled M/s. RAMCO of which plaintiff No. I and his mother Mahinder Kaur (since deceased) and the defendant were partners. A copy of the partnership deed dated 1st June, 1979, has been filed as Annexure 2 to the application of the defendant under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. The said partnership deed contains a Clause No. 15 according to which in case of any dispute or difference of opinion whatsoever amongst the partners, the same shall be settled according to the Arbitration Act as applicable from time to time. Apart from the said partnership deed ,the defendant applicant has also annexed a photo copy of a Dissolution-cum-Partnership Deed dated 1st August, 1985 executed between the partners as per the previous partnership deed and one Jawahar Singh, son of the present defendant. As per the said Dissolutioncum-Partnership Deed, the present plaintiff No. 1 and his mother Smt. Mahinder Kaur, the erstwhile partner withdrew themselves from the partnership. All the assets of the erstwhile partnership were apparently left to the continuing partners, i.e. the present defendant and her son Jawahar Lal Singh. The dissolution-cum-partnership deed dated 1st August, 1985 also contains an arbitration clause which is in the following terms: "(a).... any dispute or difference of opinion whatsoever arises out of this Dissolution-cum-Partnership Deed shall be referred to the Sole Arbitration of Shri Virender Singh son of Shri Sohan Singh, 23/12, Ashok Nagar, New Delhi, whose decision shall be final and binding to the parties to this Deed."

(2.) Relying on the aforesaid arbitration clause contained in the documents executed between the parties, the present application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act has been filed for stay of proceedings of the present suit. The plaintiffs have filed a reply to this application. One of the points taken in the reply is that the defendant has already taken steps in the proceedings of the suit and, therefore, the present application is not maintainable. Secondly, during the course of hearing of the application, the learned Counsel for the plaintiffs mainly stressed the point that in the application of the defendant under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act the disputes between the parties have not been spelled out and, therefore, the application is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. I may note here that the plaintiffs have also denied the Dissolution-cum-Partnership Deed.

(3.) So far as the first point regarding taking steps in the proceedings is concerned, nothing has been shown to substantiate this point. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the defendant-applicant has drawn my attention to an order dated 25th July, 1994 passed by this Court. This order shows that the defendant had been proceeded ex-parte and by this order the ex-parte proceedings against the defendant were set aside. Further, the order records that the defendant expressed her desire to move an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act for stay of the present suit. Soon thereafter, the present application for stay of the suit was filed. All these facts show that the averment of the plaintiffs that the defendant has taken steps in the proceedings before moving the present application is without any basis and is totally untenable.