( 1 ) PETITIONER Shri Ashok Kumar Malik has filed this petition under Section 8, read with section 20 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940, seeking appointment of Shri S. K. Choudhury, Advocate, as an arbitrator and reference of the disputes with the respondent for arbitration to the said Shri S. K. Choudhury. It is further prayed that in the event of the respondent not agreeing to the appointment of Shri S. K. Choudhury as the arbitrator, any other independent person may be appointed as the arbitrator by the Court.

( 2 ) PETITIONER is stated to have entered into a partnership with the respondent Smt. Vimla manchanda, under the name and style of M/s. Aastha (India) International. A partnership deed dated 1. 7. 1989 was executed between the parties. The said partnership deed was one at will and could be dissolved at any time with the mutual consent of the parties. The partnership deed also contained an arbitration clause in the following terms;

"clause 13= Resolution of Disputes: that dispute, if any, arising between the partners, whether in respect of the accounts or in the interpretation of this partnership deed, shall be referred to an arbitrator to be appointed with mutual consent of the partners and his award shall be final under the Arbitration Act in force on the date. "

( 3 ) AS per the petitioner, the firm had suffered losses and activities of the firm were almost stopped since April, 1991. Disputes had arisen with the respondent. Petitioner, accordingly, served a notice dated 23. 6. 1993, for dissolution of the firm. Petitioner by the said notice also nominated Sh. S. K Chaudhary as the Arbitrator for settlement of disputes between the parties and requested for the consent of the respondent. Respondent did not reply to the said notice.

( 4 ) PETITIONER claims that respondent had turned dishonest and has withdrawn substantial amounts from the firm through her husband and manipulated the accounts, resulting in liabilities to various banks and other creditors. Petitioner has listed its claims in para (9) of the petition, which read as under: 1. Advances to M/s. Bansar pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. of which your husband/ petitioner s husband is chairman and director * Rs. 1,00,000. 00 2. Advances outstanding against the petitioner * Rs. 6,92,000. 00 3. Debit balance of the capital account on account of business- losses Rs. 2,96,606. 00 4. Bank penalties along- As may be del- with upto date interest ermined by the bank. 5. Damages to the loss Rs. 10,00,000. 00 of reputation (nominally assessed ). 6. Interest @24%p. a. on the amount found due against the respondent. 7. Arbitration costs. 8. Any other claim which may arise after further scrutiny of the accounts of the firm. (* It appears that "petitioner" has been wrongly typed instead of "respondent".) it is also averred that instead of resolving the disputes, with a view to pressurise the petitioner the respondent got false cases registered against him and his brother and father.

( 5 ) RESPONDENT has raised several preliminary objections to the maintainability of the petition. Petition is claimed to be barred by limitation. The arbitration agreement between the parties is claimed to be vitiated on account of fraud and cheating indulged in by the petitioner and the present petition has been filed to stall and prolong the criminal prosecution of the petitioner under FIR No. 170/93.

( 6 ) RESPONDENT s case is that she being a housewife was only a sleeping and financing partner. The entire business was being managed by the petitioner, whose brother, Shri Jitender Maiik, functioned as the Manager of the firm. Respondent also places reliance on a subsequent agreement dated 14. 7. 1989, in terms of which petitioner was to be the managing par trier and responsible for the conduct of the business. It is- claimed that petitioner along with his brother had committed the offences of cheating and breach of trust. FIR no. 170/93, Police Station Patel Nagar, under sections 420/406/407, Indian P