GODHU MAL Vs. SM GANGA HASSO MAL IDNANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against an order of the learned First Civil Judge of Kanpur referring a dispute to arbitration.

(2.) ON the 20th April, 1947, the parties entered into a partnership and a deed was drawn up whereby the respondent, Smt. Ganga Hasso Mal Indnani, agreed to finance the venture and the appellant was to be the working partner of the concern. The partnership business was to be carried on at Matli, District Hyderabad (Sind), The respondent was to get Rs. 100/- per month for a period of eight months or six annas in a rupee in the profits, whichever was the larger sum, though she was not to be liable for any losses incurred in the business. It appears that the deed of partnership also contained an arbitration clause. The respondent advanced a sum of Rs. 5000/- to the appellant. After a few months, communal trouble started in Pakistan and the respondent shifted first to Kanpur in India, and the appellant followed her sometime later. In 1950 she filed an application under Section 20 (4) of the Arbitration Act, for filing an agreement of reference and for the appointment of an arbitrator. The appellant took a number of objections to the application and one of the objections taken was, that due to communal trouble the respondent left everything she had in Pakistan and entrusted the entire business to the appellant revoking the agreement of partnership entered into on 20th April, 1947.

(3.) THE only point urged by the learned counsel for the appellant before us is, that this decision of the learned Civil Judge is incorrect and it was for the learned Civil Judge to decide whether by the subsequent agreement, said to have been entered into in November, 1947, the previous agreement of partnership had come to an end and with it the arbitration clause. His argument is that the previous agreement having been substituted by the latter one of November, 1947, the arbitration clause contained in the previous agreement is no longer enforceable, and the subsequent agreement contained no such arbitration clause. I think that there is force in this contention.