P SUBBA RAO Vs. M VEERAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants are the defendants in O.S. No. 27 of 1979. SubCourt, Warangal. THE suit was filed by the respondent herein for dissolu tion of partnership, for rendition of" accounts and other consequential reliefs.

(2.) THE Plaintiff and the defendants bad executed a partnership deed on 16th July, 1976 and were carrying on the business running a temporary Cinema theatre and display of films in the village of Govindaraopet, Mulug Taluk, Warangal District. THE case of the respondent-plaintiff was that in view of the various facts and circumstances set out in the plaint and the hostile conduct of the defendants, the business of the firm could not be carried on and the firm could not be continued with the plaintiff and defendants as partners, and it was therefore necessary that the firm should be dissolved. THE suit was filed on 9-3-1979. On the 19th of March, 1979, the defendants filed I.A. 256 of 1979 praying that the Court may stay all proceedings in the suit in exercise of its power under section 34 of the Arbitration Act. THE defendants stated that Clause 18 of the partnership deed provided that any dispute arising between the partners in regard to any matter connected with the partnership business or any incidents of the arbitrators elected jointly by all the partners and the Award of the Arbitrators shall be final and binding on all the partners. THE defendants therefore submitted that the matter should be referred, in accordance with the arbitration clause in the partnership deed, to arbitration, and as the petitioners, were ready and willing to do all things necessary for the proper conduct of the arbitration, the Court may make an order staying the further proceedings in the suit. THE learned Subordinate Judge dismissed the said application and the defendants preferred this appeal against the said order.

(3.) SRI Jagannadha Rao, however, submitted that the ultimate conclusion of the Court below can be supported on other grounds. He sought to argue that the arbitration clause is not wide enough to cover the case of dissolution of the partnership. As stated earlier, Clause 18 provides for reference to an arbitration of any dispute arising between the partners in regard to any matter connected with the partnership businees or any incidents thereof. These words are, in our view, are wide enough to cover a case of dissolution of partnership. As pointed out by Russell in his book on 'Arbitration' 18th Edition, at page 166, there is nothing in law to prevent an arbitrator awarding a dissolution of partnership if the submission is sufficiently wide to enable him to do so. This is in accordance with the general proposition that questions should be left to the tribunal selected by the parties. As a matter of fact, one of the decisions relied upon by the respondent Padmanabhan vs. SRInivasan proceeded on the footing that it is open to the parties to provide for arbitration even in cases of dissolution of partnership. The learned counsel for the respondent did not seriously persist in pressing this contention.