Partnership disputes should be referred to the arbitral tribunal as per the arbitration agreement, and interim relief should be sought under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

JUDGMENT :

1. Both the matters are taken up together and heard analogously and decided by a common judgment and order in view of the fact that the parties herein are same and same issues are involved in both the matters.

2. This is an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 relating to arbitration agreement dated 14th July, 2008. These two applications are the outcome of souring relationship developed amongst three brothers who are the partners of a family partnership business in the name and style of Aqua Flow Polymers and IMP Irrigation Engineers. Partnership firm run under the said name and style of IMP Irrigation Engineers was originally a sole proprietorship firm of the petitioner commenced in the year 1994 when the petitioner was barely 18 years old. The petitioner’s parents wanted that their other two sons and the brother of the petitioner, being the respondents be also gainfully employed and be opted as partners in the business. Accordingly, the business was reconstituted on 11th July, 2000. Notwithstanding inducting the respondents as partners, both the brothers of the petitioner no.1 contributed very little and the respondent no.2 did not complete his studies by then and the respondent had little interest in the business as alleged by the petitioner.

3. The dispute and differences amongst the partners prompted one of the partners to apply for appointment of Arbitrator. Pursuant to the order dated 11th February, 2020 Mr. Swarnendu Ghosh, Advocate of Bar Library Club was appointed as the sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties. Obviously there was an agreement of arbitration arrived at by and between the parties which is evident from clause 23 of the Arbitration agreement dated 14th July, 2008 which provides that if there is any dispute or difference arisen out of the partnership or regarding management of it, or the accounts or touching the same, such dispute or difference shall be referred to the arbitration of any independent person to be appointed by the partners by mutual consent. If the partners are unable to appoint such person mutually, each partner shall appoint one Arbitrator and in case of difference of opinion between the Arbitrators the matter shall be referred to an Umpire to be nominated by the Arbitrators before entering into the arbitration. The provisions of the Indian Arbitration Act has to be applied to such arbitration. Pursuant to clause of arbitration, all disputes and differences shall be referred to the arbitral tribunal. The said order was passed by the Hon’ble Justice Ashis Kumar Chakraborty in AP 672 of 2019. Ergo, the Arbitrator was supposedly entered upon reference on communication so made as per the order passed by the Hon’ble Court.

4. Mr. Raja Basu Chawdhury Advocate for the petitioner has drawn my attention to the averments made in the application under section 9 of the Act, 1996 to contend that immediately after the order was passed appointing the arbitrator, the petitioner had instructed his advocate to take steps in the matter so that learned Arbitrator could enter into the reference. However, before the petitioner could take further steps the respondents, in order to frustrate the reference, had instructed his banker, Union Bank of India, Howrah Branch to freeze the bank accounts of the partnership firms morefully mentioned in paragraph 33 of the application.

5. It is further contended that in interregnum, wages/salary of the workers both at the factory premises as also in the office had fallen due which are required to be paid and if such freezing of the accounts continue in the case, it will cause hardship to the petitioner to meet the requirement. It is also submitted that by a letter dated 5th March, 2020 the petitioner requested the respondents to ensure that the salaries of the workers working at the factory and the office of the aforesaid two partnerships are cleared by issuing appropriate instruction to the banker but desp