by learned trial Judge in para No.7 of the impugned order to the effect that “the finding of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in above reported case are very clear, which clearly states that non-payment of price is not a dispute under or arising out of a contract” is misreading of the judgment in Birla Cotton's case. As a matter of fact in Birla Cotton's case, (supra), the plaintiff-respondent filed a Civil Suit No.386 of 1958 for recovery of Rs.10,625/- along with interest. Defendant-appellant filed an application under Section 34 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 (for short “Act of 1940”) for stay of the Civil Suit alleging that a dispute had arisen between the parties and there being an arbitration agreement, the matter is covered under the arbitration clause but the learned trial Judge held that before Section 34 could be invoked, the suit must raise dispute in respect of the matter agreed to be referred to Arbitration and not independent of it as no dispute was raised by the Union of Indiadefendant about its liability to pay amount claimed by the plaintiffrespondent and the only dispute, which was raised, was in respect of liability of the plaintiff-respondent under another contract and, therefore, it was held that the suit could not be stayed and appeal against the order refusing to stay the suit was also dismissed by this court and ultimately matter went before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the appeal filed by the defendant-appellant was dismissed.
