T.S. Thakur, J.

1. This appeal under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 arises out of an order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in a petition under Section 20 of the said Act whereby disputes between the parties have been referred for adjudication to the sole Arbitration of Justice D.S. Tewatia, retired Chief Justice of Punjab and Haryana High Court. The factual backdrop in which the said reference came to be made may be summarized as under:

2. The parties are real brothers who were carrying on business in partnership with each other in the name and style of M/s D.R. Kukreja and Company. Their mutual rights and obligations were governed by partnership deeds, last of which was executed on 10.7.1984. In terms of Clause 11 of the said deed, disputes arising between the parties had to be resolved by way of arbitration before a sole arbitrator to be nominated by the parties. That Clause reads:

1. In the event of any dispute or disputes arising between the parties in the running of the partnership business or any matter relating to partnership it shall be referred to a sole arbitrator, agreed to in writing by the parties and the award given by the sole arbitrator shall be binding on all the parties. In case, the parties cannot agree to a sole arbitrator, the matter will be decided in accordance with the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940.

3. According to the appellant, the partnership aforementioned was dissolved by the parties with mutual consent in terms of the retirement deed dated 16.8.1990 executed by the respondents. The relevant portion of the said deed of retirement may also be extracted at this stage for facility of evidence:

Whereas The Aforesaid parties have been carrying on business in partnership under the name and style of M/s D.R. Kukreja & Co., 54, Suraj Barbat, East of Kailash, New Delhi.

And Whereas the Retiring partners have intended to retire from the said business after settling their accounts with the continuing partner/proprietor and have thus mutually decided that the retiring partners would retire from the business w.e.f. 15th August, 90 and the retiring partners have been paid an amount of Rs. 50,000/- each from the firm in full and final settlement of all their claims and have retired from the partnership business of M/s D.R. Kukreja & Co., w.e.f. 15/8/90.

Now This Deed Witness as Under:

1. That the retiring partners have retired from the said business of M/s. D.R. Kukreja & Co., w.e.f. 15/8/90 and since then they have no concern whatsoever with the assets and liabilities of the said business which have been taken over by the continuing partner who only shall be entitled to the same after 15/8/90.

2. That in terms of the settlement the retiring partners have been paid an amount of Rs. 50,000/- each at the time of signing of this deed in full and final settlement of all their claims of capital profits and etc. and they have relinquished all their rights, title and interest in the assets of the said firm.

3. That each of the parties shall be responsible for their respective tax liabilities up to 15/8/90 and in case either party is made to pay the liability of the other party to any third party including the tax authorities, the other party would indemnify the other party thereof.

4. The appellant asserts that the above dissolution was a part of a settlement and partition of various others properties and businesses held by all the parties jointly.

5. A petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act was, in the above background, filed by respondents No. 1 to 3 against the appellant and respondent No. 4 seeking a direction for filing the arbitration agreement dated 10.7.1984 in the Court and for reference of the dispute between the parties to arbitration in terms of Clause 11 extracted earlier. Petitioners-respondents No. 1 to 3 in this appeal, alleged that disputes relating to payment of profits earned by the partnership concern and the interest on the said amount had arisen between t