1. By this petition filed under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 the petitioner seeks appointment of Court Receiver of the business and assets of the firm of M/s. Leopold Cafe and Stores, 'Cafe New York', 'Cafe Universal', 'Coffee House', ' Leostouch' and 'Leo's Boulangerie' including their bank accounts, licences, trade marks etc. and seeks other interim measures. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this petition are as under :-

2. Sometimes in the year 1975 the petitioner was admitted as a partner in the firm known as M/s. Leopold Cafe and Stores (hereinafter referred to as the suit firm). Respondent nos. 1 to 5 were subsequently introduced to the said firm by the petitioner as partners. The respondent no.6 then a minor was also admitted as a partner by the petitioner. Respondent no.6 became major on 30th September 1997 and continued as a partner of the suit firm. Duration of the suit firm is at Will under the partnership deed. Clause 7 of the deed provides that each partners shall have free access to the books of accounts at all times and shall be at liberty to make such extracts therefrom as may be thought fit by himself or his agent. Clause 8 of the partnership deed provided that the respondent no.1 to respondent no.4 were working partners and were actively engaged in conducting the affairs of the business of the suit firm. Clause 9 (a) provided for salary to be paid to the working partners. Clause 9 (d) provided that by mutual agreement in writing or by executing supplementary deed or any other deed, the salary, remuneration, bonus or commission payable to the partners may be increased or deceased or modified.

3. Under the said partnership deed, the petitioner is entitled to share in the net profit at 15%. Respondent no.6 is entitled to net profit at 10%. The remaining 75% is shared by the respondent no.1 to 5 in the ratio set-out in clause 11 of the partnership deed. Clause 13 provided that respondent no.6 on his attaining majority shall be full fledged partner in the business of the suit firm irrespective of the fact that any fresh deed of partnership is drawn up and on attaining majority, he will have right to actively participate in the business of the firm.

4. Clause 17 of the partnership provided that in the event of any of the partners acquiring any other assets, properties etc. in the individual or joint names but with the funds and investments of the partnership business then in that event the same shall belong to the suit firm. Clause 22 provided that each of the partner shall diligently attend to the business of the suit firm.

5. It is case of the petitioner that respondent no.3 is an Iranian citizen and often visits Canada and while in India he is looking after the business of Cafe Universal situate at Fort, Mumbai. Respondent no.4 is also an Iranian citizen and has settled in Canada and visits India only for a short duration every year. Respondent no.5 is wife of respondent no.3 and is housewife. It is case of the petitioner that respondent nos. 1 and 2 are operating and running the business of the suit firm to the exclusion of the petitioner and respondent no.6 and other respondents.

6. It is not in dispute that neither the petitioner nor any of the respondents have given any notice for dissolution of the suit firm and that the firm is not dissolved. Mr. Tulzapurkar, learned senior counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to various alleged breaches committed by respondent nos. 1 to 5 of their obligations under the partnership deed in support of his submission that the interim measures as prayed in the arbitration petition shall be granted by this court. My attention is invited to various paragraphs of the arbitration petition in which the petitioner has specifically alleged about such breaches.

7. Learned senior counsel submitted that though under clause 7 of the partnership deed, each partner is entitled to have free access to the usual books of acco