The main legal point established in the judgment is that the bar imposed under Section 69 of the Partnership Act, 1932, does not apply to arbitration proceedings under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

ORDER :

1. This application is filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, ‘the Act’) seeking for appointment of an arbitrator.

BRIEF BACKGROUND :

2. Petitioner and respondent Nos.1 to 3 entered into a Partnership Agreement on 10.12.2018 for carrying on the business of manufacturing, trading, import and export, to act as distributor agent, consignment agent of chemical fertilizers, Bio-fertilizers, organic fertilizers etc. and other activities as more fully described in the Deed of Partnership. The partnership firm was having its registered office at Vadodara. On account of certain disputes having arisen between partners in respect of the said Partnership Deed resulted in a notice dated 03.02.2021 being issued by the second respondent to petitioner for settling the dispute and differences amicably. Under the said notice, second respondent had indicated that the parties should express their intention within 15 days to settle the above disputes and differences. On account of there being no such settlement arrived at, petitioner got issued a notice on 23.03.2021 invoking the arbitration clause referred to in the Partnership Deed dated 10.12.2018 by nominating Mr.Abhishek Kukkar as the sole arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute and differences which had arisen between parties under the Partnership Deed dated 10.12.2018 and sought for the concurrence of the respondents namely other partners of the firm. On account of there being no concurrence and averments made in the notice having been denied by respondent Nos.1 and 3, petitioner has approached this Court for appointment of an arbitrator.

3. I have heard the arguments of Shri Maulik Nanavati, learned counsel appearing for petitioner, Mr.Shakti Jadeja, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 and Mr.Darshankumar Kabra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3.

4. It is the contention of Mr.Maulik Nanavati, learned counsel appearing for petitioner that Deed of Partnership clearly provides for resolution of disputes between parties through arbitration and in furtherance of the same petitioner had got issued legal notice on 23.03.2021 invoking arbitration clause / agreement and also suggesting the name of the arbitrator for which there has been evasive reply from the respondent Nos.1 and 3 or in other words, there being no concurrence given by the respondents to the name of the arbitrator suggested by the petitioner. Hence, petitioner has no other option but to approach this Court by this petition seeking for appointment of a sole arbitrator. He has prayed for allowing this petition.

5. Per contra, Shri Shakti Jadeja, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 opposing the prayer sought for in the petition would contend that the Partnership Deed which has been relied upon is an unregistered Partnership Deed and as such, the principles enunciated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Jagdish Chandra Gupta vs Kajaria Traders India Limited, reported in AIR 1964 SC 1882, would be squarely applicable and as such he prays for rejection of the petition. He would also submit that notice dated 23.03.2021 issued by petitioner seeking for concurrence of the name of the arbitrator suggested by petitioner is not only bereft of material particulars but it also lacks merits and on this ground itself, petition is liable to be dismissed. Mr.Darshankumar Kabra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 would oppose the petition vehemently and prays for petition being rejected.

6. By way of reply, Mr.Maulik Nanavati, learned counsel appearing for petitioner would draw the attention of the Court to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Umesh Goel vs. Himachal Pradesh Cooperative Group Housing Society Limited reported in (2016) 11 SCC 313, to contend that issue of prohibition contained under sub-section (3) of Section 69 of the Partnership Act, 1932, being attracted would not be applicable to the proceedings under the Arbitration and Con