Arbitration stay requires a real, specified dispute; bare denial of liability for unpaid goods is not enough.

A stay of a suit for recovery of the price of goods under section 34 of the Arbitration Act is available only when the applicant shows a genuine, specified dispute or difference falling within the arbitration clause. A bare assertion that the amount is not payable, without particulars explaining the basis of denial, does not by itself establish a referable dispute. Non-payment of the price of goods already supplied is treated as non-performance of a contractual obligation unless the application and surrounding material disclose an actual arbitral controversy. On that footing, the request to stay the suit failed and the proceedings were allowed to continue.

---

---

Issues: Whether a suit for recovery of price of goods could be stayed under section 34 of the Arbitration Act on the basis of an arbitration clause when the application did not specify any actual dispute or difference and the only complaint was non-payment of the price.

Analysis: A stay under section 34 is attracted only where there is a genuine dispute or difference covered by the arbitration agreement. A mere assertion that the amount is not due, without particulars showing why it is not due, does not by itself create a dispute or difference. Non-payment of the price of goods already supplied is, by itself, non-performance of a contractual obligation and not necessarily a referable dispute. The Court must be able to see from the application and surrounding material what the dispute is and whether it falls within the arbitration clause; absent such specification, stay cannot be granted.

Conclusion: The application for stay was rightly rejected, as no specific referable dispute or difference was shown.

Final Conclusion: The suit was allowed to proceed, and the request to stay the proceedings under the arbitration agreement failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A stay under section 34 of the Arbitration Act requires a specified and bona fide dispute or difference falling within the arbitration clause; mere non-payment or a bare denial of liability is insufficient.

---