RAMANI MOHAN BARMAN Vs. GOURI RANI BARMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 for stay of a suit filed by the respondent Sm. Gouri Rani Burman for dissolution of a partnership firm under Section 44 (d) and (g) of the Partnership Act. The facts of the case may, briefly, be stated as follows:

(2.) ON August 7, 1964, a registered partnership was constituted between Gouri Rani Debi, respondent No. 1, Ramani Mohan Burman, the petitioner, and 3 children of Gouri Rani, namely, Kumari Sajal Rani Burman, Kumari Bharati Burman and Kumari Bani Burman who were 15 years, 13 years and 11 years old in 1964. ON December 1. 1973, the petitioner wrote a letter to the said Gouri Burman expressing his wish to discontinue as a partner of the said firm. In the said letter he has suggested her to buy his share in the partnership firm for a sum of Rs. 30,000/-. Thereafter, long correspondences took place till November 20, 1975, for settling the amount which would be payable to the petitioner as the value of his share. ON November 11, 1976, a suit was filed by the said Gouri Burman and her children against Ramani Mohan Burman which is pending in this Court.

(3.) IT is well settled that there is an element of judicial discretion in staying a suit under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. The language of this section shows that the Court may make an order staying legal proceedings provided it is satisfied (a) there is no sufficient reason why matter should not be referred to arbitration and (b) the party seeking arbitration was ready and willing to take recourse to the arbitration proceeding at the time when the suit or proceeding is filed in a Court of law by other party, In the facts of this case, I am satisfied that the stay of the said suit for dissolution of the partnership firm should not be granted The reasons why I have come to the said conclusion are as follows: