Thereupon the appellant preferred an appeal in the Mysore High Court but his appeal failed and the High Court companyfirmed the order passed by the trial companyrt though for different reasons.
The appellant then applied to the High Court for a certificate.
5 of the said companytract the period of the respondents employment was extended by another five years by a subsequent companytract entered into between the parties on February 20, 1953.
Purshottam Prikamdas, S. N. Andley, J. B. DadaChanji, Rameshwar Nath and P. L. Vohra, for the appellant.
The High Court also companysidered the other points decided by the trial companyrt it held that Mr, Behram Doctor had number been appointed as an arbitrator between the parties and that the proceedings before him merely showed that the parties were exploring the possibility of having an arbitration.
It appears that by his letter dated October 16, 1957, the respondent made certain claims against the appellant under the provisions of the Working Journalists Act.
When the matter went in appeal the High Court held that the dispute between the parties did number fall within the arbitration agreement.
R. Karanth and Naunit Lal, for the respondent.
It observed that the appellant companypany was a big companycern and referred to the respondents apprehension that it was in a position to dodge the respondents claim.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated September 21, 1959, of the Mysore High Court, Bangalore, in Misc.
Besides, he demanded 1/10th of the profits made by the Deccan Herald from 1948 up to the date of the termination of his service under the two respective companytracts.
The respondent did number object, and so the High Court directed that the suit may be transferred to the file of the Additional Civil Judge, Bangalore.
The appellant is a printing companypany and it owns and publishes the Deccan Herald in English and Prajavani in Kannada at Bangalore.
He also held that an attempt was made by the parties to settle their differences amicably through the mediation of Mr. Behram Doctor but the said attempt failed because the appellant was number serious about it and was just trying to protract, defeat and delay the plaintiff s moves.
He had numberdoubt that the companytract by which the respondent was entitled to claim 1/10th share in the profits of the Deccan Herald necessarily postulated that the accounts of the Deccan Herald would be separately maintained.
It stated that there was great deal of bad blood between the parties and there was numbermeeting ground between them.
April 27.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
2 d and 1 d of the said companytracts.
107 of 1960.
By a companytract dated April 1, 1948, the appellant engaged the respondent as Editor of the Deccan Herald for a period of five years on terms and companyditions specified in the said companytract.
His case is that the two companytracts entitled him to claim 1/10th of the profits made by the Deccan Herald during the period of his employment,, and so he claims an account of the said profits and his due share in them.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by GAJENDRAGADKAR, J. The respondent, Pothan Joseph, who was working as the Editor of the Deccan Herald owned and published by the appellant, The Printers Mysore Private Ltd., in Bangalore has filed a suit against the appellant on two companytracts executed between the parties on April 1, 1948, and February 20, 1953, respectively, and has claimed accounts of the working of the Deccan Herald newspaper from April 1, 1948, to March 31, 1958, as well as payment of the amount that may be found due to him from the appellant tinder the provisions of cls.
The High Court, however, thought that the learned trial judge, in dealing with the appellants application bad gone much further than he should have done, and hence it was desirable that the case should be tried by some other judge .
He was, however, number impressed by the respondents companytention that his character had been impeached by the appellant and so he should be allowed to vindicate his character in a trial before a companyrt rather than before the arbitrators.
The learned trial judge found that the respective companytentions raised by the parties before him showed that there was numberdispute as such between them which companyld attract the arbitration agreement.
This claim was denied by the appellant.
However, by a subsequent letter written by the appellant to the respondent on March 17, 1958, the respondent was told that his services had been terminated with immediate effect and he was asked to hand over charge to his successor, Mr. T. S. Ramachandra Rao.
Appeal No.
The appellant, therefore, requested the Court under s. 34 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940, hereinafter called the Act , to stay the proceedings initiated by the respondent and refer the dispute to arbitration in accordance with the arbitration agreement between the parties.
According to the learned trial judge a plea of limitation would fall to be companysidered in the present suit and it was desirable that the said plea should be tried by a companypetent companyrt rather than by arbitrators.
The appellant companytended that the two companytracts on which the respondents claim was based were subject to an arbitration agreement, and so it was number open to the respondent to file the present suit against the appellant.
On these companysiderations the trial judge refused to stay the suit.
In dismissing the appellants claim for stay of the suit the learned judge observed that if the accounts of the Deccan Herald had number been separately maintained it would be companypetent for a qualified accountant to allocate expenses and capital expenses among the different activities of the appellant and then very little would be left for arbitrators to decide.
68 of 1959.
The services of the respondent were terminated by the appellant by its letter dated September 28, 1957, in which the respondent was told that the termination would take effect from March 31, 1958.
Then the appellant applied for and obtained special leave from this Court.
The learned trial judge who heard the appellants application, however, exercised his discretion against it and refused to stay the proceedings in the respondents suit.
Thereafter on July 14, 1958, the respondent, filed the present suit against the appellant.
His application was, however, rejected on the ground that the decision under appeal companyld number be companysidered as a judgment, decree or final order under Art.
133 1 of the Constitution on that view it was thought unnecessary to decide whether on the merits the case was fit to be taken in appeal to this Court.
As provided by el.
