SUSHIL MAJUMDAR Vs. SOVA RANI BISWAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by the plaintiff arises out of a petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act registered as Title Suit No. 1085 of 1981 of the City Civil Court at Calcutta.

(2.) THE plaintiff-appellant's case as made out in the application under Section 20 is as follows :-- THE plaintiff and the 3 defendants were co-partners carrying on business under the name and style of M/s. New Book Agency as publishers and book sellers each having 1/4th share in respect of the profits and losses of the said business. Originally this partnership was in the name of Hem Chandra Biswas since deceased, the plaintiff and defendants 2 and 3. A partnership agreement by and between them was executed on 2lst April, 1975. After the death of Hem Chandra Biswas, his widow defendant No. 1 was taken in as a partner and a new agreement was executed on Dec. 29, 1978 for carrying on the same business. Clause 10 of the deed of partnership provides that no partner shall be competent to connect or associate himself with any other business of like nature. THEre is an arbitration clause being Clause No. 28 which provides that any dispute or difference that may arise between the partners or their representatives with regard to the construction of the instrument or inspection of accounts, profits and losses of the business, or rights and liabilities of the business or dissolution or winding up of the firm, shall be referred to 4 arbitrators, one to be nominated by each partner and the proceeding shall be governed by the Partnership Act. Defendants 1, 2 and 3 having 3/4th share in the business have been acting arbitrarily and in gross violation of the terms of the partnership deed. THEy started a similar trade in publishing and selling of books under the name and style of M/s. Standard Library, by making a false representation to the customers that it was only a sister concern of the firm M/s. New Book Agency. In Jan., 1981 the plaintiff having come to know of this, at once protested against the illegal activities of the defendant. This resulted in serious disputes amongst the partners. Plaintiff's request for production of the books of accounts for the last three years for inspection and for settlement of accounts proved futile, the defendants being in the custody of the same. Finding no other way the plaintiff served notices upon the defendants requesting them to nominate their representative arbitrators so that the dispute between them may be referred to arbitration. After having received the notices the defendants served the plaintiff with a notice dated 20th May, 1981 for dissolution of partnership instead of nominat-ing their representative arbitrators. THE further case of the plaintiff is that the defendants are not interested to refer the dispute to arbitration notwithstanding the provisions for such reference in the deed of partnership. In para 8 of the plaint it is then stated "the plaintiff further states that the assets, the stock in trade, furniture, books, papers and blocks comprise a value of Rs. 50,000/-. Besides this there is also a bank account under the control of the defendants in the United Industrial Bank, College Street Branch. THE plaintiff has no knowledge about the exact amount lying in the bank". THE disputes raised by the plaintiff relate to the question as to when. M/s. Standard Library was established, the nature of its business, the stock in trade of the business of M/s. New Book Agency, amount due and payable by the firm M/s. New Book Agency to the plaintiff, the net profit and loss of the firm and the amount due and payable to the firm from the market as also the liability of the firm, In para 13 it is stated "For the purpose of the valuation of this application the same is valued at Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand) only and the court-fee stamps upon the same is filed herewith accordingly". On such allegations the plaintiff claimed for an order that the agreement dated 29-12-1978 entered into by and between the plaintiff and the defendants be filed in Court, and reference to arbitration be made under Section 20 (4) of the Arbitration Act.

(3.) THE learned Chief Judge of the City Civil Court disposed of the objection regarding jurisdiction by the order impugned. It was contended before him that in view of the averments in paragraph 8 of the application under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act the value of the assets of the partnership firm was more than Rs. 50,000/- which was beyond the limit of pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court the valuation for purposes of jurisdiction being dependent on the total value of the assets of the firm. It was further submitted before him that the application was not really one for accounts or for dissolution of the firm.