The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Arbitral Tribunal has jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes regarding the dissolution of the partnership firm and the settlement of its accounts within the scope of the arbitration agreement, and no fresh reference is required.

ANIL KUMAR, J.

( 1 ) THIS order shall dispose of the appeal filed by the Petitioners under section 37 (2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 against the dismissal of his application under section 16 of the Act seeking adjudication of the issue relating to settlement of accounts of the dissolved firm by the arbitration Tribunal.

( 2 ) BRIEF facts to appreciate the controversies between the parties are that Petitioners and respondent had partnership in terms of a deed of partnership dated 1. 9. 1985. The partnership deed had an arbitration agreement incorporated in Clause 15 which is as under:-"15:- That all the disputes and questions in connection with the partnership or this deed, arising amongst the partners shall be transferred to arbitration and its decision shall be binding on all the partners. "

( 3 ) THE partnership was at will and could be dissolved by giving two months notice in writing to other partner.

( 4 ) SH. AMAR Singh, respondent filed an arbitration application being AA no. 256/2002 for appointment of an arbitrator in terms of arbitration agreement between the parties contained in Clause 15 of the partnership deed which was allowed and an arbitral tribunal was constituted with a retired Judge of this court as a presiding arbitrator.

( 5 ) DURING the pendency of the arbitration proceedings, it seems a notice dated 8. 5. 2004 was given by the petitioners to the respondent dissolving the partnership arrangement dated 3. 9. 1985 in terms of Clause 13 which was replied by the respondent denying the averments made by the petitioners in their notice and it was also contended by the respondent that if the petitioners wish to invoke clause 13 of the partnership agreement they will have to follow the contents of the same. Clause 13 of the partnership agreement is as under:-"13:- That the partnership is at Will and can be dissolved by any partner by giving two months notice in writing to the other partners. During the period of this notice the accounts shall be finalized and settled amongst the partners. "

( 6 ) THEREAFTER another notice dated 21. 6. 2004 along with accounts as drawn uptill 31. 3. 2004 was sent. The respondent did not reply to the said notice and instead filed a petition being OMP No. 216/2004 in the High Court which was specifically dismissed as withdrawn on 25. 8. 2004 However, while dismissing the petition as withdrawn it was observed that whether the petitioners herein should be restrained from dissolving the partnership firm, shall be dealt with the arbitral Tribunal as he is seized with the matter.

( 7 ) THE petitioners thereafter raised the matter regarding settlement of accounts and dissolution of partnership agreement between the parties as the dissolution of the partnership shall also be within the ambit of arbitration agreement as contemplated under Clause 15, however, the arbitral tribunal by its order dated 26. 2. 2005 observed that for deciding the issue regarding dissolution the petitioners may file appropriate application along with relevant documents and fix the case for disposal of application on 27. 3. 2005.

( 8 ) THE petitioners, therefore, filed an application under Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 praying inter-alia that since the issue regarding settlement of accounts consequent upon dissolution of partnership be also adjudicated by the Arbitral Tribunal so as to enable settlement of the disputes relating to partnership between the parties. The application of the petitioners was considered by the arbitral Tribunal and was dismissed by order dated 11. 8. 2005 holding that partnership had not been dissolved when reference was made to the Arbitral tribunal nor it is the case of the petitioners that the firm had been dissolved at the time when the Arbitral tribunal was appointed. It was held that the parties had raised their claims and counter claims for settlement of accounts of running partnership business and, therefore, the scope of reference