JUDGMENT - REBELLO F.I., J.:---Heard both the parties.

2. The petitioners have filed the present petition under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. It is the contention of the petitioners that they are a registered partnership firm, which is at Will. The petitioners have dissolved the partnership by their Counsels letter dated 7th October, 2002. Once the partnership is at Will and has been dissolved, considering the law laid down by the Apex Court to protect the property of the partnership firm, the Court should appoint Receiver for the partnerships assets. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has drawn my attention to the documents on record and the averments made in the petition.

3. On the other hand, on behalf of the respondents, learned Counsel contends that this Court would have no jurisdiction to entertain the petition under section 9 of the Act, 1996. It is contended that the petitioners claim to be partners along with petitioner Nos. 2 and 3, now transposed as respondent Nos. 5 and 6. Similarly, the respondents, who are sued have been shown as partners, in the Deed of Partnership dated 8th December, 1995. That partnership is not admittedly registered. Therefore, the dissolution sought for by the petitioners was in respect of a partnership which ceased to exist consequent on a new partnership coming into existence by induction of additional partnership whose names are not registered with the Register of Firms. The earlier partnership had petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 1 as partners. The partnership of the year 1990 was registered on 28th May, 1990. This has been so pointed out, considering section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act as amended in the State of Maharashtra. It is contended that this Court would have no jurisdiction to hear and entertain the present petition. If that be so, reliefs as sought ought to be rejected. In the alternative, it is contended that if this Court comes to the conclusion that this Court has jurisdiction, then the admitted position is that the petitioners along with the newly added respondent Nos. 5 and have never been incharge of the assets of the partnership. The business of a hotel was being conducted by respondent Nos. 1 to 4. The hotel is a running concern. Petitioner No. 1 and respondent Nos. 5 and 6 are abroad. In the circumstances, if Receiver is to be appointed, the respondents should be appointed as agents of the Receiver considering that there is a running business of a hotel.

4. The first issue, therefore, with which we are concerned, is whether an application under section 9 of the Act of 1996 is maintainable considering section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1996. The partnership agreement contains a clause for arbitration. The petitioners herein have not moved this Court or judicial forum for referring the disputes to arbitration. The petitioners have come before this Court to protect the assets of the partnership pending decision by the Arbitral Tribunal consequent upon dissolution of the partnership. The arbitral clause was invoked by legal notice dated 1st November, 2002. It is, therefore, necessary to understand the nature of the challenge which can be summarized in the following words.

"When there is an existing firm registered under the Partnership Act and new partners are inducted, the old firm ceases to exist and an altogether new firm comes into existence from the date of induction of a new partner. This new firm must be registered and its partners suing have to be shown in the Register of Firm in terms of section 69 of the Partnership Act as existing in the State of Maharashtra."

If it is held that the old partnership subsists then what is to be dissolved will be the old registered partnership to which the respondents are not parties. What the petitioners have terminated and further invoked the arbitral clause is of a partnership which has subsequently come into existence by partnership deed dated 8th December, 1995. This is the sum and subst

Click Here to Read the rest of this document