JUDGMENT :

Shekhar B. Saraf, J.

1. This is an application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) seeking appointment of a sole arbitrator to arbitrate all disputes and differences which have arisen between the parties in relation to the partnership agreement dated April 25, 1997.

2. The relevant facts necessary for the determination of this application are as follows:

a. The petitioner and the respondent are cousin brothers and they are partners in equal share in the partnership business being under the name and style of M/s Ganguram & Sons, having its office and place of business at 22/1, Gariahat Road, Kolkata 700 029 and manufacturing unit at 57/A, Purnadas Road, Kolkata 700 029.

b. Originally, the father and uncle of the petitioner, namely, Shaligram Chaurasia and Kashinath Chaurasia were the partners of the said partnership business. In 1997, the petitioner and respondent were inducted as the partners of the said partnership business on the terms and conditions as recorded and mentioned in the partnership deed dated April 25, 1997.

c. By efflux of time, Kashinath Chaurasia and Shaligram Chaurasia expired in 2011 and 2012 respectively and their shares devolved upon the petitioner and respondent respectively in terms of the provisions contained in the said partnership deed.

d. On and from April 2017, there were signs of discord and difference of opinion between the parties in relation to the management of the said partnership business. Pursuant to such disagreements, two civil suits being T.S No. 916 of 2018 and T.S. No. 1046 of 2018 were filed by the petitioner before the Alipore Court. The respondent had also instituted two civil suits being T.S. No. 551 of 2018 and T.S. No. 985 of 2021 before the Alipore Court. However, the parties failed to resolve the disagreements between them and the same further flared up post filing of the said civil suits. It is to be noted that the T.S. 985 of 2021 was instituted by the respondent after the petitioner had approached this Court in the present application.

e. On October 19, 2020, the petitioner sent a notice and asked the respondent to adhere to the terms and conditions of the partnership agreement, and to allow access to books of accounts and participation in the business to the petitioner. The petitioner followed up with a legal notice on November 13, 2020 wherein he dissolved the partnership business and called upon the respondent to divide the assets and properties of the said business as per the said agreement.

f. Finally, on February 11, 2021, the petitioner issued a letter upon the respondent invoking arbitration as per Clause 26 of the said partnership deed and appointed Mr Manabendra Ray as the Learned Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes which have arisen between the parties.

g. On receipt of no response from the respondent, the present petition was filed by the petitioner seeking appointment of a sole arbitrator by the Court to adjudicate the disputes between the parties.

Submissions

3. The counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has made the following arguments :

a. The counsel submitted that the respondent with an ulterior motive and mala fide intention had caused disturbance and/or hindrances in the petitioner’s peaceful participation in the partnership business. He further submitted that the petitioner has lost all faith, trust and confidence in the respondent and it became completely impossible to carry on business-in-partnership with the respondent.

b. The counsel stated that the statements contained in the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent were wholly false to the knowledge of the petitioner and the same has been done deliberately and consciously.

c. Finally, the counsel contended that the partnership deed between the parties is not forged or manufactured and that the disputes between the parties should be referred to arbitration as there exists a valid arbitration clause and that the arbitrator