( 1 ) THIS miscellaneous appeal is directed against the order and decretal order dated 1-3-1993 in I. A. No. 125 of 1992 in O. S. No. 4 of 1992 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Srikalahasti.

( 2 ) RESPONDENT filed O. S. No. 4/92 seeking a declaration that the partnership firm "sri Ramasudha Oil Mills" at Panagal, Srikalahasti has been dissolved with effect from 20-12-1991 and for taking of the accounts of the firm; alternatively a direction is sought dissolving the said firm the date to be fixed by the Court and for taking of the accounts of the said firm. The respondent-plaintiff also sought a direction appointing him as the Receiver of the firm during dissolution till the winding up of the business is complete. The appellant, who is the defendant in the suit, filed a written statement contesting on various counts, including maintainability of the suit.

( 3 ) APPELLANT-DEFENDANT also filed I. A. No. 125/92 under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code before the Court below seeking stay of all further proceedings in the suit. The grounds urged therein by the appellant-defendant were that in terms of Clause 13 of the partnership deed dated 1-11-1974 any dispute arising out of the partnership is referable to arbitrator and, therefore, the suit is not maintainable. It was also contended that arbitrators have also beenappointed by both the parties; that the date 21-12-1991 was fixed for the arbitrators to meet at a particular place and decide the dispute; that when the partnership is at will, in terms of Section 43 of the Arbitration Act, no suit is maintainable and that, therefore, till the arbitrators settled the entire dispute, proceedings in the suit cannot be allowed to be continued.

( 4 ) RESPONDENT-PLAINTIFF filed a counter to the I. A. admitting the fact of the partnership being at will and also the fact of a clause being contemplated in the partnership deed for referring to the arbitrator any dispute touching the affairs of partnership. It was, however, contended in the counter that the arbitrator so appointed by the respondent-plaintiff has colluded with the appellant-defendant, which act would work against the interest of the respondent-plaintiff; that though notice dated 20-12-1991 was issued by the respondent-plaintiff indicating dissolution of the firm with effect from that date, the appellant-defendant questioned the authority of the respondent-plaintiff in seeking dissolution of the firm, through reply letter dated 27-12-1991 and that, therefore, the respondent-plaintiff was forced to approach the Civil Court by filing the suit.

( 5 ) THE Court below, after hearing the contentions raised by the parties and referring to few decisions, has come to the conclusion that no prejudice would be caused to the appellant-defendant if further proceedings are not stayed in the suit. The Court below felt that the suit is filed under the provisions of Sections 44 (c), (d), (f) and (g) of the Arbitration Act; that there are serious allegations levelled against the arbitrator; that it would be better to decide the matter by the Civil Court and that, therefore, rejected the application seeking stay of all further proceedings in the suit.

( 6 ) SRI C. V. Nagarjuna Reddy, learned Counsel for the appellant, contends that when the partnership is at will, it is not open to the parties concerned to approach the Civil Court and seek dissolution of the partnership under Section 44 of the Arbitration Act. It is also contended that Clause 13 of the partnership deed is categorical to the effect that "if at any time, there is any dispute either in regard to business or connected matters, the same shall be referred to arbitration, each party appointing one, the decision of the arbitrator shall be binding on the parties". It is also contended that Clause 3 of the partnership deed indicates that the partnership is at will and that, therefore, when the deed itself provides for dis

Click Here to Read the rest of this document