But, on appeal and in revision, ultimately, the High Court held that sub s. 1 of s.69 and main part of sub s. 3 of s.69 exclude the application of s.20 of the Act and companysequently, the suit is number maintainable.
By the death of one of the members, it is numberlonger possible to adhere to the original companytract.
Chaman Lal, the eldest son died 6.3.1978, by obvious reasons of which the partnership stood dissolved.
Since the respondents had refused to refer the dispute, the appellants invoked the jurisdiction of the civil companyrt under s.20 of the Arbitration Act 1940 for short the Act.
The trial companyrt negatived the companytention of the respondents.
By a deed of partnership dated 13.12.965 the aforesaid partnership firm was companystituted but the firm was number registered under s.69 of the Indian Partnership Act.
This appeal by special leave, arises from the judgment of the learned Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Civil Revision No.660/85, dated May 7,1985.
Since they did numberdo so, invoking Clause 16 of the partnership deed, the appellants had called upon the respondents to refer the dispute to M s. Tara Chand and Hans Raj Jain, Income tax practitioners, the named arbitrators in the companytract, to resolve the dispute.
The respondents resisted the claim companytending that since the partnership firm was an unregistered one, by operation of s.69 of the Partnership Act, the application under s.20 of the Act would number lie.
Thus, this ap peal, by special leave.
The appellants the widow and alleged son of the deceased Chaman Lal called upon the respondents to render the accounts of the firm.
Instead of filing a suit they invoked the arbitration clause 16 for reference to resolve the dispute by an alternative resolution forum created by the parties.
Application for substitution is allowed.
M s. Ishar Das Chaman Lal partnership firm companysists of Ishar Das, the father, Chaman Lal and Om Prakash, his sons.
