Wide arbitration clause and limited fraud allegations justified reference to arbitration despite objections over parties and piecemeal reference.

An arbitration clause covering connected agreements and a forest-cutting arrangement was held wide enough to embrace the dispute, so reference to arbitration could proceed despite objections. The absence of one interested person did not bar filing of the agreement or reference, because that person's share was not itself in dispute and the controversy remained capable of resolution between the contracting parties. A later agreement was treated as confirmatory and supplementary, so the proposed reference was not piecemeal. On fraud, mere allegations of incomplete, exaggerated, or suspicious accounts were not sufficient cause to refuse filing under section 20(4); only serious allegations of fraud warranting a civil trial would justify denial of the arbitral forum.

---

---

Issues: Whether the arbitration agreement should be filed and a reference made despite objections based on absence of one interested party, alleged piecemeal reference, scope of the arbitration clause, and allegations of fraud.

Analysis: The arbitration clause was wide enough to cover disputes arising out of the connected agreements and the forest-cutting arrangement. The absence of Ambikabai as a party did not prevent reference, as her share was not in dispute and the dispute between the parties to the agreement could still be referred to arbitration. The agreement of May 1952 was only confirmatory and supplementary to the earlier arrangement, so the proposed reference was not piecemeal. On the question of fraud, section 20(4) conferred discretion to refuse filing and reference only where sufficient cause was shown. Mere allegations that accounts were incomplete, exaggerated, or suspicious did not amount to serious allegations of fraud requiring a trial in open court.

Conclusion: The objections failed and the dispute was rightly referred to arbitration.

Final Conclusion: The appeal did not disclose sufficient cause to deny the parties the arbitral forum chosen by them, and the order directing filing of the arbitration agreement and reference to arbitration stood affirmed.

Ratio Decidendi: Serious allegations of fraud may justify refusal of a reference to arbitration under section 20(4), but mere suspicions or disputes about the correctness of accounts do not constitute sufficient cause to decline arbitration where the clause otherwise covers the dispute.

---