The court affirmed that limitations on partnership claims do not preclude arbitration despite non-registration, and arbitrators have broad discretion to assess claims based on evidence presented.

JUDGMENT :

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.

1. The Petition bearing O.M.P. (COMM) 381/2017 under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 has been filed on behalf of the Claimant, Hari Om Sharma, partner seeking to challenge the Award dated 28.04.2017 and the corrected Award dated 01.07.2017 vide which the learned Arbitrator has decided the claims of the Claimant in Arbitration proceedings pertaining to their partnership Firms M/s Ashika Textiles and Classic Processors.

2. The facts in brief are that the Claimant/petitioner, Mr. Hari Om Sharma and Mr. Sauman Kumar Chatterjee, and Mr. S.K. Malhotra, the respondent No.1& 2 respectively, constituted M/s Ashika Textiles, the Partnership Firm at Will, by executing a Partnership Deed on 12.05.1995 in Sahibabad, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh having its Head Office in Delhi. The second Partnership Firm in the name of Ashika Textiles House was constituted in the year 1999 by the same partners but it was closed in the year 2000 itself under the Orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in regard to the Polluting industries. After the closure of M/s Ashika Textiles House, the third Partnership Firm at Will, namely, Classic Processors was constituted on 19.12.2000 at Sahibabad, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh having its Head Office at Delhi. The job work had been commenced under the Partnership Firm in June, 2001.

3. Eventually, the Two Firms closed their business on 31.07.2003. Thereafter, disputes arose interse the Partners. The petitioner served a Legal Notice dated 27.10.2004. With further facts that came to his knowledge till 01.08.2005, the Claimant served second Legal Notice dated 01.08.2005 and also made his Claims. On receiving a Reply dated 16.08.2005 from the respondents, the petitioner then issued the third Legal Notice dated 29.08.2005 for seeking redressal of his Disputes through Arbitration. The respondents gave their consent only in the case of Ashika Textiles and refused in the case of Classic Processors, on the false averment of there being No Arbitration Clause in the Partnership Deed.

4. The petitioner then sent a copy of the Partnership Deed of Classic Processors, which contained the Arbitration Clause in the year 2006, but no further response was received from the respondents. The Petitioner filed Arbitration Petition No. 373/2006 under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act and Justice Satpal (Retired) was appointed as the Arbitrator on 28.03.2007 in the case of M/s Classic Processors. Since the respondents had already consented in the connected case of M/s Ashika Textiles, the Arbitrator was appointed for this Firm as well. On the request of the parties, both these cases were clubbed by the Arbitrator.

5. The Ld. Arbitrator entered into reference on 16.04.2007. Fifteen Claims were raised by the petitioner in connection to M/s Ashika Textiles, which are as under: -

“Claim No. 1: 1/3rd amount of Rs. 15,00,000/- towards the cost of Plant and Machinery.

Claim No. 2: 1/3rd amount of Rs. 12,00,000/- towards cost of Treatment Plant, Electric connection and Electric fittings, tube wells and its fittings, water fittings, printing tables, big size heavy duty generator, etc.

Claim No. 3: 1/3rd amount of Rs. 12,00,000/- towards stock of misprint sarees, cloth sketch books, beggary and aluminium dying frames, etc.

Claim No. 4: 1/3rd sum of Rs. 60,00,000/- towards goodwill. Claim No. 5: a sum of Rs.2,86,651/- towards interest of capital amo