By Arbitration Petition No.410 of 2015 filed under Section 37(1)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short “the Arbitration Act”), the petitioners (original respondents) have impugned the order dated 11th October 2014 passed by the learned arbitrator under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act passed in favour of the respondent to the said arbitration petition. By Arbitration Petition (L) No.1435 of 2015 filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act, the petitioner/original claimant has prayed for an order and direction against the respondents to the said arbitration petition to forthwith hand over possession and management of the 'King of Iran Restaurant' as per and in implementation/compliance of the orders dated 10th March 2015 and 23rd March 2015 passed by the learned arbitrator under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act in favour of the petitioner to the said arbitration petition and for various other reliefs. By consent of the parties, both the arbitration petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by a common order.

2) The petitioners in Arbitration Petition No.410 of 2015 were the original respondents in the arbitral proceedings whereas the respondent to the said arbitration petition was the original claimant. For the sake of convenience, the parties are described in this order as they were described in the arbitral proceedings as “the claimant and the respondents,” as the case may be. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding these petitions are as under :

3) On 20th May 2001, a Partnership Deed was entered into between the respondents and one Sarguroh family in the name and style of M/s. King of Iran (for short “the firm”) which held and conducted the restaurant business in the premises namely Shop Nos. 9 to 14, Yusuf Chambers, Byculla (E), Mumbai (for short “the said suit premises”). It was, however, the case of the respondents that the said suit premises did not belong to the firm.

4) On 12th February 2002, the claimant and the respondents entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) under which the claimant agreed to be inducted as a partner in the said firm in lieu of the claimant getting finance to renovate the said suit premises which stood damaged in fire on 21st May 2001 and to restart the partnership business. It is the case of the claimant that the said MOU was wrongfully disputed by the respondents though the same was acted upon.

5) On 15th February 2002, a Deed of Retirement was executed between the respondents as continuing partners and the Sarguroh family as the exiting partners who held 35% share in the said firm. The respondent no.1 sought from the Sarguroh family release of their 35% share in the firm including the tenancy rights of the firm.

6) On 1st April 2002, the claimant and the respondents executed a Partnership Deed. Under the said Partnership Deed, the claimant had 30% share in the said partnership. Clause 22 of the Partnership Deed provides for an arbitration agreement. From the year 2006 onwards, the claimant had been intermittently outside the country and the affairs of the firm were entrusted to the respondent no.1. It is the case of the claimant that from April 2002 to May 2013, the claimant had been paid approximately Rs.30,000/- per month towards his share in the firm which amounts were deposited in the accounts of the claimant by the respondents or his family members.

7) Vide their letters dated 11th March 2013, 23rd March 2013 and 9th April 2013, the claimant requested the respondents to give accounts of the suit firm for the period from April 2002 to March 2013. It is the case of the respondents that on 16th April 2013, the respondents furnished the accounts of the suit firm to the claimant along with income tax returns of the suit firm from 1st April 2002 to 31st March 2012.

8) It is the case of the claimant that the claimant sat in the hotel of the suit firm, M/s. King of Iran from April 2013 to 7th July 2013 and realized that the firm h