BABULAL SINGHANIA Vs. PIRUDAN OJHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two Rules arise out of two orders passed in Misc. Appeal No. 35 of 1:975 and Title Suit No. 22 of 1976 respectively. Civil Rule No. 3457 of 1975 is directed against the order passed on 13th of August, 1975 by the District Judge. Howrah in Misc. Appeal No. 35 of 1975 affirming the order No. 18 dated 7-3-75 passed by the Munsif, First Court, Howrah in Title Suit No. 267 of 1974 rejecting the application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. Civil Rule No. 3036 of 1975 is directed against the order No. 28 dated 3lst July, 1975 passed by the Subordinate Judge, Second Court, Howrah in Title Suit No. 22 of 1975 allowing the plaintiff opposite party's application under Order 39, Rule 7 of the , Civil P. C. for issue of a commission for making inventory of the articles and account papers as mentioned in the petition. On the prayer of both the parties these two rules were heard together.

(2.) THE opposite party, Pirudan Ojha in Civil Rule No. 3457 of 1075 instituted on Nov. 21, 1974 a suit being Title Suit No. 267 of 1974 in the First Court of Munsif, Howrah against the defendant petitioner Babulal Singhania for dissolution of partnership and for accounts stating inter alia that the plaintiff and the defendant carried on the partnership business under the name and style of "Siba Processing and Co." at premises No, 4, Gopalram Pathak Road, on the 'basis of an agreement executed and registered by them on June 6, 1969 which was subsequently amended by a deed of agreement dated September 14, 1971, that in the said business the plaintiff has 40% share and the defendant has 60% share, that there were differences with the defendant who refused to render any account of loans taken from United Commercial Bank and defaulted in payment of instalment to the bank and of the monthly rents to the landlord of the factory premises. It has also been alleged that the defendant removed all account books and other relevant papers from the office of the factory and the loans sanctioned by the bank in favour of the partnership firm were actually paid by cheques to different customers of the partnership business most of whom were fictitious customers and the defendant thus misappropriated a huge sum of money. THE plaintiff on October 14, 1974 served a notice for dissolution of the partnership which was a partnership-at-will on the defendant and he repeatedly requested the defendant to settle all disputes by referring to Arbitration in terms of the partnership agreement but without any effect. Hence this suit has been filed.

(3.) THE plaintiff opposite party filed a written objection contending inter alia that the plaintiff came into the management of the firm only on and from 14-9-1971, that there was no valid and subsisting agreement between the parties, that the partnership business had been dissolved prior to the institution of the suit by a notice dissolving the partnership firm and the petitioner requested to settle the disputes by Arbitration but without any effect and as such the application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act should be rejected.