JUDGMENT :

1. The respondent no. 2 is admittedly an unregistered partnership firm. According to the respondents, the petitioner retired from the firm by oral settlement in the year 2014. However, the petitioner denies such retirement and contends that he, as Karta of his HUF, all along continued to be a partner till he issued a notice under Section 43 of the Partnership Act, 1932 to dissolve the firm on November 10, 2022.

2. The petitioner seeks reference to arbitration of the disputes which have currently arisen between the parties with regard to the assets of the partnership firm, since dissolved. Since the parties failed to agree on an arbitrator, the present application under Article 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, “the 1996 Act”) has been preferred.

3. The respondents object to such reference inter alia on the ground of limitation. Learned counsel for the respondents contends that the petitioner lost locus standi to raise dispute as a partner with his retirement in the year 2014, for which limitation has expired in the year 2017. The disputes have only been raised in the year 2022. The respondents have also filed a suit, inter alia seeking a declarati