The main legal point established is that applications seeking enforcement of a right to sue related to dissolution of a partnership and settlement of accounts are maintainable under the exception provided in Section 69(3)(a) of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, even if the partnership is unregistered.

( 1 ) PETITIONERS applications under Sections 11 and 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 have been dismissed for being barred by Section 69 of the Indian PARTNERSHIP ACT, 1932 by impugned order dated 2. 9. 2002 passed in Suit No. 65/2002 giving rise to this petition.

( 2 ) PETITIONERS had filed these applications before learned Additional District Judge for appointment of arbitrator under Section 11 and for appointment of receiver under Section 9 of the Act as a temporary interim measure. Their case was that private respondents 2 to 6 had inducted them in partnership vide partnership Deed dated 30. 9. 2000 pursuant whereto they had contributed their share capital but these respondents had then in breach of the terms of Partnership prevented them from having any excess to books/ registers of partnership firm, had issued cheques without obtaining their signatures, had failed to maintain any statement of accounts and had deprived them from the profits and so on. The disputes had thus arisen and a notice was served on them invoking the arbitration clause in the partnership Deed and informing them that they had appointed one Mr. S. Bahl, Chartered accountant as their arbitrator. They were also required to appoint an arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes/differences that had arisen within 30 days of the receipt of the notice but they had failed.

( 3 ) PETITIONERS accordingly prayed in their application under Section 11 as under: -

"a) The court be pleased to appoint sh. S. Bahl as sole arbitrator; b) Refer the disputes and differences to the sole arbitrator; c) Appoint a receiver to look after the partnership firm including the records of partnership firm. "

( 4 ) IN their application under Section 9 of the arbitration Act, petitioners asked for a restraint order against respondents No. 2 to 6 from issuing any cheque on behalf of the firm which exceeds Rs. 10,000/- and from entering into the office of partnership firm and for appointment of receiver for taking the records of firm into custody and for looking after it.

( 5 ) RESPONDENT Nos. 2 to 6 filed their reply explaining that partnership business ran into losses of which petitioners were informed and in response to which they had shown their disinterest in continuing with the partnership. They had terminated the partnership putting an end to their rights as partners. It was also claimed by them that the accounts were also settled and excess payment made to them and that there was no occasion for appointment of a receiver nor had any disputes arisen between them which were referable to any arbitration.

( 6 ) NO objection was taken by these respondents against the maintainability of the two applications. All the same, the following issue was framed by the teamed Additional district Judge on 8. 7. 2002 in these apptications:-

"whether the petition is maintainable in view of bar created by Section 69 (1) of the Indian PARTNERSHIP ACT, 1932. "

( 7 ) THE impugned order records that no arguments were advanced by the petitioners to justify the maintainability of their applications. The case of the respondents on the other hand was that since the partnership firm was an unregistered one, the petition filed by petitioners was not maintainable under Section 69 (1) and even under the exceptions provided under sub clause (3) of this Section. Reliance in this regard was placed on the judgment of this Court in M/s. Paras Ram Darshan Lai Vs. Union of india (AIR 1979 Delhi 135), Om Prakash vs. Usha Rani 96 (2002) Delhi Law Times 35 and Mohd. Monirul Hasan Vs. Mohd. Iftikar ahmed (AIR 2000 Guwahati 108 ).

( 8 ) LEARNED Additional District Judge decided this preliminary issue upholding the respondents plea and dismissing petitioners applications by holding:-

"the case of petitioners is squarely covered by the judgments (Supra) as already observed by me. The petitioners have proceeded to file the present petition on the basis of continuing partnership which admittedly is unr