JUDGMENT :

R.D. Dhanuka, J.

1. By this petition filed under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the petitioners have impugned the arbitral award dated 15th April, 2016 rejecting the claims filed by the petitioners and directing the petitioners to pay cost of Rs. 7,00,000/- to the respondents. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this petition are as under.

2. The petitioners were the original claimants whereas the respondents were the original respondents in the arbitral proceedings. On 2nd April, 1977 V.U. Shah Family Trust and N.U.F. Shah Family Trust and C.U. Shah Family Trust constituted a partnership firm in the name and style of M/s. Prospective Traders. On 9th December, 1985, the original partners thereafter took the petitioners and the respondents as partners of the said firm. Clause 11 of the said Deed of Partnership provided that upon retirement of any of the partners, the partnership shall not be dissolved but the same shall continue as regards the continuing partners. Clause 16 of the said Partnership Deed provides for arbitration.

3. It is the case of the petitioners that on 24th April, 1998, the original partners served notice of retirement through their advocates giving three months notice of their intention to retire from the said firm. Upon retirement of the original partner, the petitioners and the respondents are the only partners of the said firm having equal share in the said firm pursuant to the said Deed of Partnership dated 9th December, 1985. It is the case of the respondents that by a Partnership-cum-Retirement Agreement dated 30th December, 1987 and 3rd July, 1995, the original partners had retired on 30th December, 1987. The petitioners themselves had retired on 3rd July, 1995. The share of each partners under clause (7) of the said partnership were (a) petitioner no. 1 HUF - 36% (b) petitioner no. 2 - 14%, (c) respondent no. 1 HUF - 22% (d) respondent no. 2 - 28%. The petitioners have disputed their signatures on the Retirement Deed dated 30th December, 1987.

4. On 9th March, 1994 with a view to settle the disputes between the family members, an MOU was executed between the petitioners, their son Samir, respondent no. 1, his wife, his two sons and respondent no. 2. It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioners were not parties to the said MOU. The suit firm was not part of the said MOU because MOU pertained only to family of Mr. Hemant D. Shah and Mr. Chittaranjan D. Shah and excluded entities in which third parties were involved. It was the case of the respondents that in accordance with the said MOU dated 9th March, 1994, on 3rd July, 1995, the petitioners had allegedly signed a Deed of Retirement cum Partnership dated 3rd July, 1995 and the petitioners allegedly retired from the suit firm. It is the case of the petitioners that they did not sign any such alleged Retirement Deed dated 3rd July, 1995.

5. On 15th December, 1995, Mr. N.U. Shah a partner of the suit firm addressed a letter to the petitioner no. 1 enclosing the Balance Sheet and Profit and Loss Account of the suit firm as on 31st March, 1995. According to the petitioners, the said Balance Sheet as on 31st March, 1995 showed the names of the original partners as well as the names of the petitioners and the respondents in the column of Partners Capital. On 25th March, 1996, the petitioners addressed a letter to the Allahabad Bank alleging that they were the partners of the suit firm and informed that they had not authorized any partner to deal with the said Allahabad Bank for the property of the said firm.

6. It is the case of the petitioners that on 8th July, 1996, a draft letter dated 'NIL' which had to be sent to Allahabad Bank and a draft of the letter of authority which had to be given by all the 7 partners including three original partners to the said Bank giving authority to respondent no. 1 to deal with Allahabad Bank was sent by respondent no. 1 to petitioner no. 1 for his signatures. O