TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1973 (10) TMI 60
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat according to the deed of partnership, dated January 4, 1963, it had been agreed between the parties that all disputes between the partners were to be referred to the Arbitrator. It was further stated that the defendants were willing at the time of the institution of the suit and continued to be so to do all things necessary for proper conduct of the arbitration proceedings. The application was contested by the plaintiffs. Inter alia they pleaded that there was no such agreement, that the defendants had taken steps in the proceedings and that the defendants had not disclosed in the application the dispute sought to be referred to the arbitration. It was further stated that the defendants were not ready and willing to refer the matter to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ten statement. The order of the Court dated October 21, 1970 is as follows:-- "Present: Counsel for the parties. Order For written statement to come up on November 16, 1970." On November 16, 1970, the parties requested the Court for adjourning the case for compromise. The Court passed the following order on that date:-- "Present: Counsel for the parties. Order Counsel for the parties request for adjournment for effecting compromise. The parties to attend on December 24, 1970." On December 24, 1970, the Court passed the following order:- "Present: Counsel for the parties. Order Compromise not effected. For written statement to come up on January 1, 1971" 5. From the p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r urged that both the parties requested for an adjournment on November 16, 1970 for effecting a compromise. He also contends that seeking an adjournment for compromise is a step in aid of the proceedings. I do not agree with this contention of the learned counsel for the appellants. It has been observed in Daulat Ram Rala Ram v. State of Punjab, AIR 1958 Punj 19 that the true test for determining whether an act is a step in the proceedings is not so much the question as to whether, it is an application but whether the act displays an unequivocal intention to proceed with the suit and to give up the right to have the matter disposed of by arbitration. I am respectfully in agreement with the aforesaid observations of the learned Judge of this....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is meant by "a step in the proceedings in the suit" in Section 34 of the Act. It was further observed that it would depend upon the circumstances of each case. In my view, the appellants cannot derive any benefit from that case. For the reasons recorded above, I do not find force in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants and reject the same. 8. The next contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that in the application under Section 34 of the Act, the dispute between the parties had not been mentioned and it was necessary under the law to have stated such a dispute in the application. In the circumstances, he submits that the application was liable to be dismissed on this ground. On the other hand, the lear....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed to amend the application under Section 34 of the Act and incorporate therein the disputes existing between the parties. In the plaint, it has been stated that due to the sad demise of Shri Tek Chand plaintiffs had been left unaided and the firm had been dissolved by operation of law. Defendants 1 to 5 were in possession of the books of account, records, material and other assets. Therefore, the plaintiffs prayed that a decree for rendition of accounts of the partnerships named and styled as detailed in paragraph 3 of the plaint, be passed in favour of the plaintiffs. The partnership agreements have not been denied by the defendants. The defendants examined D.W. 1 Rattan Chand who deposed that he was the marginal witness of the partnershi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... was no point of difference before the filing of the suit, there was nothing to refer to arbitration. In a later Division Bench case Bharat Construction Co. Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 1954 Cal 606, similar view was again expressed by the Calcutta High Court. It was observed by the learned Bench that an application under Section 34 should make out that a dispute, as understood in the law of arbitration, had arisen before the institution of the suit or before the filing of the application, that such dispute was the subject-matter of the suit and that the dispute was within the arbitration clause of the contract. Again a similar matter came up before the Circuit Bench of this Court at Delhi in Dwarka Nath Kapur v. Rameshwar Nath, 1966-68 Pun ....