JUDGMENT

V. Kameswar Rao, J. As the captioned petitions arise from the same factual matrix, seeking appointment of an arbitrator, I shall proceed to decide both the petitions together.

ARB.P. 842/2019

2. The petitioner herein, Simran Sodhi, and the respondent Sandeep Singh entered into a Partnership Deed on March 10, 2014, for carrying out manufacturing and trading of plastics, electronics and electrical items under the name of S.S. Manufacturing (`the Firm', hereinafter). In terms of the Partnership Deed, it was agreed that the profit/loss incurred by the resultant Partnership Firm shall be borne in the ratio of 67% (by the petitioner) and 33% (by the respondent). However, the said ratio was subsequently altered to 60% (by the petitioner) and 40% (by the respondent).

3. It is submitted by Mr. Vikas Arora, learned counsel for the petitioner that due to poor market conditions and various actions, breaches and omissions on the part of the respondent, including misbehavior with the Firm's suppliers/vendors, the Firm suffered substantial losses. In view of the losses suffered by the Firm, it became impossible for the petitioner to continue with and sustain the Firm any longer. Resultantly, the petitioner and the respondent decided to amicably dissolve the partnership. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner, the respondent and several other persons/representatives had a meeting on June 21, 2019 wherein it was discussed that there are irrecoverable losses caused to the Firm and both parties need to come up with an exit plan to close down the Firm completely. As agreed by the respondent in the said meeting, it was decided that both partners i.e. the petitioner and the respondent, individually, would evaluate the total assets and liabilities of the Firm and mutually prepare and agree upon an exit plan. Subsequently, the petitioner and the respondent met again on June 25, 2019, where the petitioner had hoped that the respondent would discuss the exit plan with a positive frame of mind in order to dissolve the Firm. The losses as reflected in the balance sheet of the partnership Firm as on that day was Rs.4,90,52,569.91/-.

4. However, no action was taken by the respondent on the exit plan offered by the petitioner, i.e. offering to liquidate the stocks, plants and machinery of the Firm immediately and close down the factory to stop any further losses and running expenses. Rather, the respondent kept delaying the matter on one pretext or the other. It is stated that in the middle of such important events, the respondent went on a 10 days' vacation and refused to respond to the queries/communications from the petitioner.

5. In the meantime, the customers from whom various orders were taken and even advances were obtained started complaining and even refused to release payment for goods already supplied until their orders are completed. As such, the father-in-law and brother-in-law of the petitioner were requested to help. They permitted manufacturing and supply of the pending orders in the name of their company M/s Rugs Enterprises Private Limited. Accordingly, all the pending orders were transferred to the name of M/s Rugs Enterprises Private Limited, who invested money, purchased raw materials and completed the supply. They also supplied goods free of cost to cover up the advances received by SS Manufacturing, enabling SS Manufacturi