The Sub Judge, however, held that the petition was maintainable.
J. Leave granted.
Appeal No.13 of 1992, the High Court has ultimately by its order dated 16.12.1992 upheld the order of the Sub Judge granting a stay under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act.
The appellant filed Misc.
This application was granted.
The present appeal is form the order of the High companyrt dated 5.8.1993.
In appeal before the High Court being Misc.
The first respondent raised a preliminary objection companytending that the partnership firm was unregistered, and by reason of Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act, a petition under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act was number maintainable.
In Civil Revision No.19O of 1993 which was filed by the first respondent against his order, the High Court, by its order dated 6.8.1993, has allowed the revision and held that by reason of Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act, a petition under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act is number maintainable.
Case No.11 of 1992 before the Sub Judge, Ranchi under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act for appointment of an arbitrator.
A.K. Choudhary.,
with him for the Respondents.
As the deed of partnership companytained an arbitration clause, the appellant made an application before the Sub Judge under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act for stay of the Title Suit No.71 off 1991.
The first respondent brought Title Suit No.71 of 1991 against the appellant and respondent 2 to 5 for dissolution of the partnership firm and for accounts in the Court of the Sub Judge, Ranchi.
for Manoj Prasad, Adv.
J U D G M E N T The following Judgement of the companyrt was delivered Mrs. Sujata V.Manohar.
The appellant and respondents 1 to 5 were partners in an unregistered partnership firm by the name of M S. Lakshmi Narain a Sons which was companystituted under a deed of partnership dated 4/6.11.1967.
for the appellant A.Mohta.
