9911796707
TMI Blog1984 (8) TMI 357X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the arbitrators and the suit be stayed. The plaintiffs contested the suit. The trial Court framed the following issues:-- (1) Whether there is valid and subsisting agreement between the parties relating to the subject matter of the dispute? OPA (2) If issue No. 1 is proved whether the proceedings in the suit are liable to be stayed ? OPD (3) Relief. After evidence was led, the trial Court by judgment dt. 29-5-1976, allowed the application of the defendant and stayed the suit after giving findings on all the issues in favour of the defendant. This is plaintiff's appeal. 2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties I am of the view that this appeal deserves to succeed. In the plaint, the plaintiffs have clearly prayed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erely by filing of the suit. Since the instant partnership was a partnership at will, the trial Court followed the observations in the aforesaid judgment and held that by filing of the suit, the partnership stood dissolved and, therefore, S. 44(g) of the Partnership Act could not be relied upon by the plaintiffs to seek dissolution of partnership through Court on just and equitable grounds. Firstly, the learned counsel for the plaintiffs urged that the facts of the aforesaid decision were distinguishable and secondly, he argued that it was not a correct decision in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Banarsi Das v. Kanshi Ram, AIR 1963 SC 1165 and Khushi Ram Beharilal Co. v. State of Punjab, 1971 Rev LR 253. In Banarsi Das's ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n only to partnerships other than those at will . The aforesaid passages were relied upon by a Division Bench of this Court in Khushi Ram Behari Lal Co.'s case (supra) and it was ruled that dissolution of partnership would take place under O. 20, R. 15 of the Civil P. C. even if it is at will and form a date fixed in the preliminary decree, unless the partnership is dissolved under S. 43 of the Partnership Act. Admittedly, in the present case partnership was not dissolved under S. 43 of the Partnership Act and the plaintiffs straightway filed a suit for dissolution of partnership. Therefore, it is clear that some observations contained in the judgment of R. S. Narula, J. go counter to the observations of the Supreme Court and in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lmost identical. Even if the partnership had stood dissolved, the question of rendition of accounts could not be gone into by the arbitration after the dissolution of partnership and had to be decided by the Civil Court. This part of the judgment of the Court below is also reversed. 5. For the reasons recorded above, this appeal is allowed, the judgment of the Court below is hereby set aside and the application of Hardial Singh Dhillon defendant filed under S. 34 of the Arbitration Act is hereby dismissed. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs. 6. The parties through their counsel, who are represented before me, are directed to appear before the trial Court on the 27th day of August, 1984 for proceeding with the suit. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
