S. MURALIDHAR, J.

1. The subject matter of challenge in these petitions under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (Act), is an Award dated 25th November, 2012, passed by the sole Arbitrator in the disputes between the parties.

2. The challenge in OMP No. 217 of 2013 is by Mr. Harminder Singh Suri (hereafter HS), who is aggrieved by the Award to the extent it has allowed the claim petition of his brother Mr. Amrik Singh Suri (hereafter AS) and directed that HS pay AS his dues in the dissolved partnership within two months from the date of the Award failing which the outstanding dues shall carry simple interest @ 12% from the date of the Award. AS has filed the companion O.M.P. No. 219 of 2013 to the extent that the impugned Award has denied him pendente lite interest on the awarded sum.

Background facts

3. As already noted HS and AS are brothers. They constituted a partnership firm in the name of M/s. Suri Transmission Gear Company (the firm) by a partnership deed dated 1st April, 1981, which contained an arbitration clause. While HS operated from New Delhi, AS operated from Mumbai. In his statement of the claim filed before the learned Arbitrator in April 2004, AS stated that the firm was carrying on the business of sale and purchase of spare parts, crank shaft, machinery such as forging die blocks at the following addresses 335, Gurunanak Auto Market, Kashmiri Gate, Delhi C-279, Mayapuri, Phase-II, New Delhi; B-2/60, Janakpuri and B-2/1, Janakpuri, New Delhi. It was stated that the premises at 335, Gurunanak Auto Market was a rented in the name of AS. The Mayapuri premises was purchased by the firm in March 1998 for a sum of Rs. 7.50 lakh. It was claimed that the Deed of Partnership was still in operation and the partnership had not been dissolved. An account of the firm was opened with the State Bank of India, Janakpuri, Delhi and Union Bank of India at Kashmiri Gate, Delhi. It has been agreed that the partnership would be at Will and proper books of accounts would be maintained and kept in the business premises with the right of any party to have access thereto and inspect the accounts. The profits and losses of the firm were to be shared in equal proportions.

4. AS alleged that HS had betrayed his trust and had become dishonest since 2002. AS alleged that HS refused to allow AS to enter the Mayapuri premises, the Kashmiri Gate premises and other premises; refused to show the books of accounts, bank accounts, stock registers, purchase registers and also refused to give the details of the sales and purchases. AS alleged that HS opened a bank account with the State Bank of India, Janakpuri in the name of Suri Enterprises as Proprietor and started diverting the business as well as funds of the firm to the proprietorship concern. AS alleged that when HS refused to permit inspection of the books of accounts or share the profits of the firm, AS was left with no option except to inform HS that he was not interested in continuing as a partner. As requested that the firm be dissolved. When even this request was not acceded to, AS served a legal notice dated 6th September, 2003 and thereafter filed a petition under Section 11 of the Act in the High Court. In the said petition, by an order dated 13th February, 2004, a former Judge of the Court was appointed as the Arbitrator.

5. Meanwhile AS also filed a petition under Section 9 of the Act praying that HS should be restrained from selling, alienating and/or parting with any assets and material, stocks lying at the aforementioned premises; that a Receiver be appointed to run the business and AS should be permitted to inspect the books of accounts. An interim order was passed restraining HS from selling, alienating, parting with or creating any third party interest in respect of the immovable properties of the partnership firm. After the arbitration pro