The court's limited scope of interference in arbitral awards under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and the principles of natural justice were upheld.

JUDGMENT

Manish Pitale, J. - The petitioner is aggrieved by award dated 6th December, 2019 passed by the learned arbitrator, whereby the claims of the respondent No.2 (original claimant) have been allowed. The partnership firm in question is dissolved and declaration is given as regards the proportion of share of the parties to the arbitration proceedings.

2. The facts leading to filing of the present petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, are that a firm, Singara Nilgiri Plantation Company, came into existence in the years 1951-1952. It was started by members of two families i.e. Madhvani family and Suchde family. The business of the firm involved cultivation, manufacturing and processing of tea in the Nilgiri hills. The firm owns an office at Nariman Point, Mumbai.

3. In 1971, the father of the petitioner, the respondent No.1 and respondent No.3, died and his share in the firm was allotted in equal proportions to his sons i.e. petitioner and respondent No.3, who were admitted to the benefits of the firm. On 31st March, 1976, the members of the Suchde family, who were partners in the said firm, retired from the firm and consequently, the firm was continued by the remaining partners belonging to Madhvani family. The partners were Manubhai Madhvani, Pratap Madhvani, Surendra Madhvani and Mayur Madhvani, all being the uncles of the petitioner. The respondent No.3 (through his mother and natural guardian i.e. respondent No.2) alongwith the petitioner also continued as partners in the firm.

4. On 15th December, 1976, a partnership deed came to be executed, wherein partners and their shares were as follows:

5. According to the respondent No.1, who is the sister of the petitioner, on 1st July, 1977, a further deed of partnership was executed, whereby the firm was re-constituted and all the aforementioned uncles retired from the partnership firm. The petitioner alongwith the respondents and Sushilaben Chauhan i.e. sister of respondent No.2 became partners in the said firm. According to the respondent No.1, upon such re-constitution, the partners and their respective shares were as follows:

6. The petitioner seriously disputed the execution of the said partnership deed dated 1st July, 1977, on the basis of certain deficiencies in the deed, reference to which shall be made later in this judgment. The business of the firm continued and income tax returns and other such documents were regularly filed on behalf of the firm. On 28th May, 2016, the petitioner, through his advocate, wrote a letter to respondent No.1, inter alia, denying that she was entitled to 15% share in the firm and it was claimed that the same was only nominally vested in the said respondent, for some accommodation for respondent No.2, who is the mother of the petitioner and the respondent Nos.1 and 3. On 27th June, 2016, the respondent No.1 sent reply through her advocate, asserting that she was entitled to 15% share, as per the duly executed partnership deed dated 1st July, 1977. In the backdrop of the aforesaid dispute, on 20th April, 2017, the respondent No.1 issued a notice for dissolution of the firm.

7. The petitioner responded by a notice, disputing the partnership deed dated 1st July, 1977. In the backdrop of the aforesaid dispute between the parties, the learned arbitrator came to be appointed by order dated 4th July, 2017, passed by this Court in Commercial Arbitration Peti