( 1 ) THE anguish of the Supreme Court articulated in Guru nanak Foundation v. Rattan Singh and Sons, AIR 1981 SC 2075, is as true today as it was so many years ago. D. A. Desai, J. said that:

"interminable, time consuming, complex and expensive Court procedures impelled jurists to search for an alternative Forum, less formal, more effective and speedy for resolution of disputes, avoiding procedural claptrap and this led them to Arbitration Act, 1940 ("act" for short ). However, the way in which the proceedings under the Act are conducted and without exception challenged in Courts, has made Lawyers laugh and legal philosophers weep. Experience shows and law reports bear ample testimony that the proceedings under the act have become highly technical accompanied by unending prolixity, at every stage providing a legal trap to the unwary. Informal Forum chosen by the parties for expeditious disposal of their disputes has by the decisions of the courts been clothed with legalese of unforeseeable complexity. "

( 2 ) THE present case is yet one more such example. The partnership deed between the parties contained an Arbitration Clause yet it required the petitioner to file a