Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 508 (PNJ)

Ajit Kaur v. Tri Bhawan

2010-01-21

VINOD K.SHARMA

body2010
Judgment Vinod K.Sharma, J. 1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 17.08.2007, passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kurukshetra, vide which the application moved by the petitioner, for referring the dispute raised in the suit for arbitration, stands dismissed. 2. The plaintiff filed a suit for dissolution of partnership and rendition of accounts. 3. On notice,the petitioner filed an application for referring the dispute to arbitration on the ground, that the clause of partnership deed provided, that in matter regarding interpretation of deed, or any other matter relating to the affairs of the firm, shall be referred to two arbitrators mutually agreed, in accordance with the Indian Arbitration Act. It was, thus, asserted that the jurisdiction of the civil Court was barred. 4. The application was contested, by taking a stand, that the dissolution of partnership, was not a dispute with regard to interpretation of the deed or matter connected with the affairs of the firm, therefore, the matter in dispute was not covered by arbitration clause in the partnership deed. 5. The learned trial Court, in view of the law laid down by the Hon-ble Supreme Court in Haryana Telecom Ltd.,v. Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd., 1999(3) R.C.R. (Civil) 619 and judgment of this Court in M/s. Makkar Cotton Mills v. Harmandar Singh 2001(1) R.C.R. (Civil) 47., dismissed the application. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner challenged the impugned order, by contending that the learned trial Court wrongly placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon-ble Supreme Court in Haryana Telecom Ltd. v. Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd. (supra), as the said judgment has no applicability to the case. That was the case regarding winding up of a company and not dissolution of a firm. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner also contends, that in M/s. Makkar Cotton Mills v. Harmandar Singh (supra) no law was laid down, as this Court merely held that the dispute could not be referred to the arbitrator regarding dissolution of firm. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contends, that the matter was required to be referred to the arbitrators in view of the law laid by this Court in Tejinder Pal Grover and others v. Murari Lal Gupta, 2007(5) R.C.R. (Civil) 690, the judgment of the Hon-ble Supreme Court in The Empire Jute Co. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contends, that the matter was required to be referred to the arbitrators in view of the law laid by this Court in Tejinder Pal Grover and others v. Murari Lal Gupta, 2007(5) R.C.R. (Civil) 690, the judgment of the Hon-ble Supreme Court in The Empire Jute Co. Ltd. and others v. The Jute Corporation of India Ltd. and another, 2008(1) R.C.R. (Civil) 151 - 2008(1) S.C.T. 29 - 2007(6) R.A.J. 420 and judgment of Hon-ble Division Bench judgment of this Court in M/s. Regent A utomobiles v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited and others, 2008(3) R.C.R. (Civil) 752. 9. On consideration, I find no force in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. This Court in Tejinder Pal Grover and others v. Murari Lal Gupta (supra) was considering the dispute as to whether the partner, who was seeking dissolution of the firm, had been removed from partnership. The Court was not to consider the dissolution and rendition, of accounts of the firm, therefore, this judgment has no application to the facts of the present case. 10. Similarly, in The Empire Jute Co. Ltd. and others v. The Jute Corporation of India Ltd. and another (supra), the Hon-ble Supreme Court has laid down that the dispute which is covered by the arbitration clause is to be referred to the arbitration. The finding recorded by the learned trial Court is, that the matter regarding dissolution of firm and rendition of accounts is not a matter which is covered under the clause of arbitration, therefore, the matter was, not to be referred to the arbitration. This judgment, therefore has no application to the case in hand. 11. The Hon-ble Division Bench of this Court in M/s. Regent Automobiles v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited and others (supra) was dealing with a matter which was covered under the arbitration clause, therefore, the matter was ordered to be referred to arbitration. 12. The question raised in this revision is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in M/s. Sharda Ginning Pressing & Oil Mills & others v. Smt. Simla Devi, 2007(1) R.C.R. (Civil) 818, wherein on interpretation of similar arbitration clause, it was held that the matter regarding dissolution of partnership deed and rendition of accounts was not covered under the arbitration clause. 13. 13. In view of the law laid down by this Court in M/s. Sharma Ginning Pressing & Oil Mills & others v. Smt. Bimla Devi (supra), no ground is made out to interfere with impugned order.