Civil Revision No.7849 of 2009 -: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.7849 of 2009 Date of decision: August 10, 2010. Pushpinder Kumar ...Petitioner(s) v. Joginder Pal & Anr. ...Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: Shri Sandeep Bansal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri Sudeep Mahajan, Advocate, for the respondents. Vinod K. Sharma, J. (Oral): The petitioner has invoked the jursidiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to challenge the order dated 19.10.2009 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior division), Hoshiarpur vide which the application moved by the defendant-respondent under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act (in short the Act), for referring the parties to arbitration, stands allowed. The plaintiff filed a suit for rendition of accounts as well as dissolution of partnership firm. On notice, the defendant-respondent appeared and filed an application under Section 8 of the Act, pleading therein that there existed an arbitration agreement, clause 13 of which reads as under:- “All the differences and disputes relating to partnership or its Civil Revision No.7849 of 2009 -: 2 :- dissolution or arising out of this deed shall be resolved by arbitration under Arbitration Act 1940 or any other Act or Law prevailing in its place at that time and decision of arbitrator shall be final and binding.” In view of the existence of the arbitration agreement, the learned trial Court accepted the application and ordered that the matter be referred to arbitration as per Clause 13 of the partnership deed. The offer made to the petitioner to give some names of persons out of whom he wanted to get an arbitrator appointed, was not accepted by the petitioner. The case of the petitioner is that the impugned order cannot be sustained, inasmuch as when the notice was issued to the defendant- respondent, a stand was taken in reply to the notice that the partnership deed already stood dissolved, thus, there remain no arbitration clause. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner was that once the respondent had denied the existence of an arbitration agreement, there was no occasion for the Court to allow the application under Section 8 of the Act. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further contends that the plea taken in the suit is that the dissolution claimed by the respondent- defendant is outcome of fraud and forgery, which cannot be decided by the arbitrator. On consideration, I find no force in the contention raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. The arbitrator is not de-barred from deciding any question referred to him including the fact whether the dissolution claimed is outcome of fraud or forgery. Nor the plea of the petitioner that a stand was taken that the partnership deed stood dissolved, Civil Revision No.7849 of 2009 -: 3 :- can be a ground to non-suit the defendant-respondent in an application under Section 8 of the Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Branch Manager, Magma Leasing & Finance Ltd. & Anr. v. Potluri Madhavilta & anr., 2009(10) SCC 103 has laid down, that once there is an arbitration agreement between the parties, then it is mandatory for the Court to refer the matter to arbitration. The partnership deed, on the basis of which the suit was filed by the plaintiff, contained an arbitration clause, referred to above. Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court,the learned trial Court rightly allowed the application moved by defendant/respondents. No merit. Dismissed. August 10, 2010. [ Vinod K. Sharma ] kadyan Judge