SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1980 Supreme(Cal) 255

High Court Of Calcutta
Pratibha Bonnerjea
ARJUN AGARWALLA - Appellant
Versus
BAIDYA NATH ROY - Respondent
Matter 930  Of  1979
Decided On : 07/10/1980

Advocates Appeared:
ANINDYA MITRA, Arvindo Ghosh, N.C.ROY CHAUDHARY, RAM CHANDRA PRASAD

Taking part in an application for injunction for protection of the interests of the parties is not a step in the proceeding.

Headnote:

ARBITRATION - STAY OF SUIT - STEP IN PROCEEDING - SUPPLEMENTAL PROCEEDING - APPLICATION FOR INJUNCTION - TAKING PART IN APPLICATION FOR INJUNCTION FOR PROTECTION OF INTERESTS OF PARTIES - NOT A STEP IN PROCEEDING - DISPUTE IN SUIT COVERED BY ARBITRATION CLAUSE - DISSOLUTION OF PARTNERSHIP AND ACCOUNTS - ARBITRATOR'S JURISDICTION TO GRANT RELIEF UNDER SECTION 44 (F) AND (G) OF PARTNERSHIP ACT - ARBITRATION CLAUSE BECOMING UNWORKABLE - COURT'S DISCRETION NOT EXERCISED IN FAVOUR OF PETITIONER.

Fact of the Case:

Petitioner and respondents entered into a partnership agreement with an arbitration clause. A dispute arose, and the petitioner filed an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act for stay of a suit filed by the respondent for dissolution of partnership and accounts. The respondents contended that the petitioner had taken steps in the proceeding by filing affidavits and obtaining time for filing affidavits in the application for injunction.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that taking part in an application for injunction for protection of the interests of the parties is not a step in the proceeding. The dispute in the suit is covered by the arbitration clause, and the arbitrator has jurisdiction to decide any dispute between partners relating to or appertaining to the partnership deed. However, the arbitration clause has become unworkable due to the division of partners into different groups, making the appointment of an arbitrator by consent difficult.

Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner had taken steps in the proceeding by filing affidavits and obtaining time for filing affidavits in the application for injunction? 2. Whether the dispute in the suit is covered by the arbitration clause? 3. Whether the arbitration clause has become unworkable?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that taking part in an application for injunction for protection of the interests of the parties is not a step in the proceeding, as it is not taken out for aiding the progress of the suit but for the protection of the interests of the parties pending the decision on dispute either by the Civil Court or in a private forum. 2. The court held that the dispute in the suit is covered by the arbitration clause, as it is a dispute between partners relating to the partnership deed arising during the continuance of the agreement or afterwards. 3. The court held that the arbitration clause has become unworkable due to the division of partners into different groups, making the appointment of an arbitrator by consent difficult.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the petitioner's application for stay of the suit, holding that the court's discretion should not be exercised in favour of the petitioner as this may lead to serious complications in future.

PRATIBHA BONNERJEA, J.

( 1 ) THE parties to this application entered into a partnership agreement dated 5-1-1976 to carry on business under the name and style of Godhur Colliery Co. The said deed contained an arbitration clause as follows:--"32. If during the continuance of the partnership or any of them afterwards any dispute, differences or question shall arise between the partners hereto relating to or appertaining to such partnership of these presents, such disputes, difference and question shall be referred to arbitration of two Arbitrators one to be appointed by the First party and the Other by the other parties and in case of difference between the Arbitrators at any point the same shall be referred to a third party umpire as the case may be final and binding on the parties. "

( 2 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner, the partnership stood dissolved on expiry of the period of partnership on 31-12-1970 or from 17-10-1971 when the business undertaking was taken over by the Government under the provisions of Coking Coal Mines (Emergency) Provisions Ordinance 1971 which ultimately culminated in nationalisation of the said business under the provisions of Coking Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act 1972. This allegation of dissolution is denied by the respondents Nos. 1 and 3 who are contesting this application. It is further alleged in the petition that a settlement was arrived at by and between the parties and a joint petition was filed before the Commissioner of Payment whereby the respondent admitted that a sum of Rs. 1,15,000 would be payable to the petitioner out of the compensation money and pursuant to the order of the Commissioner of Payment the partners have received payments. These allegations are denied by the respondents. The petitioner stated that on 4-8-1979, the petitioner was surprised to receive a letter from one Solil Kumar Mukheriee whereby the petitioner was intimated that in Suit No. 555 of 1979 (Baidya Nath Roy v. Arjun Agarwalla and Ors) this Court had passed an order restraining the petitioner from receiving any money in respect of compensation. Thereafter he instructed M/s. Meheria and Co. to enquire into the matter and on 13-8-1979 the matter was mentioned on behalf of the petitioner and the Court directed service of a copy of the plaint on the petitioner and gave directions for filing affidavits in the pending application. The matter was again mentioned on behalf of the petitioner on 31-8-1979 for adjournment of the date of hearing of the application. Instead of filing the affidavit-in-opposition, the petitioner took out this application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act for stay of the Suit No. 555 of 1979 filed by the respondent No. 1 on 30-7-1979 for dissolution of the partnership and accounts. The petitioner alleged that he did not take any step in the proceeding and was ready and willing to do everything necessary for proper conduct of the Arbitration. The respondents Nos. 1 and 3 filed their respective affidavits-in-opposition alleging that the petitioner orally prayed for vacating the interim order of injunction on 13-8-1979. The court refused to grant the said prayer and gave directions for service of a copy of the plaint on the petitioner and for filing affidavits. The petitioner again prayed for extension of time to file affidavit on 31-8-1979 and obtained another adjournment of hearing of the application on 6-6-1979 (or 6-9-1979 ? ). Thereafter on 7-9-1979 the present application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act was taken out. The conduct of the petitioner will show that he had taken steps in the proceeding prior to the taking out of this application. It was further alleged that the subject matter of the suit was not covered by the arbitration agreement and the agreement became unworkable. Hence stay should be refused.

( 3 ) THE counsel for the appearing respondents, cited several cases in support of their contention that the aforesaid acts of the petitioner would amount to taking s










Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top