Point of Law: Scope of an arbitration agreement is limited to the parties who entered into it and those claiming under or through them, Courts under English Law have, in certain cases, also applied the 'Group of Companies Doctrine'.

JUDGMENT :

C.S.Sudha, J.

1. Lack of consensus among the partners, who are not strangers but mother and three children with the mother and two daughters on one side and the only son on the other side, in the matter of sharing profits of their partnership firms, initially constituted by their predecessor-in-interest, P.V. Balakrishnan Nair, led to the arbitration proceedings. Not happy with the award passed by the sole Arbitrator, the son and grandson, the latter subsequently impleaded, moved the District Court, Ernakulam under S.34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the Act). The District Court set aside the award partly. Aggrieved by the same the mother and son are before this Court in the present appeals.

2. P.V. Balakrishnan Nair and Kamala had three children, namely, Manoharan, Krishna Kumari and Sreelatha. Among the various business concerns started by the patriarch, there were three partnership firms, namely, Raja Rajeswari Weaving Mills (the Mills); Kamala International Tourist Hotel (the Hotel) and Raja Rajeswari City (the City). The patriarch passed away in the year 1999. Kamala and her three children are partners in the aforesaid three firms. Admittedly, the son, Manoharan, the Managing partner of the firms was managing the affairs of the firms. Disputes arose among the partners relating to the running of the Firms and in the matter of sharing of profits. Kamala, the mother, moved three suits before the Sub Court, Thalasseri, for dissolution of the aforesaid three firms and rendition of accounts. The son resisted the suits and invoked Section 8 of Act contending that since there is an arbitration clause in the partnership deeds of the three firms, the matter needs to be referred for arbitration. The Court disposed of the suits by referring the matter for arbitration. The parties were unable to reach a consensus regarding the Arbitrator to be appointed. Hence Kamala moved A.R.No.46/2005, A.R.No.47/2005 and A.R.No.53/2005 before this Court for appointment of an Arbitrator, as Manoharan failed to nominate an Arbitrator within thirty days of the demand made by her in this regard. This Court by order dated 09.12.2005 nominated three retired District Judges as Arbitrators. Manoharan was not happy with the nomination and hence he took up the matter before the Hon'ble Supreme Court by filing SLP No.12890/2006. Vide order dated 15.2.2007, Justice (Retd.) C.S. Rajan was appointed as the sole Arbitrator.

3. Before the learned Arbitrator, Kamala filed three claim petitions, namely, A.C.No.1/2007, A.C.No.2/2007 and A.C.No.3/2007. A.C.No.1/2006 was for dissolution and rendition of accounts of ‘Raja Rajeswari Mills and other sister concerns like Kamala International, Kamal Chennai, etc.’ ; A.C.No.2/2006 was relating to Kamala International Tourist Hotel, and A.C.No.3/2006 was relating to Raja Rajeswari City. Manoharan, Krishna Kumari and Sreelatha were arrayed as Respondents 1 to 3 respectively in these cases. The daughters, namely, the second and the third respondents supported and sailed along with the mother. The son, namely, the first respondent contested the matter and filed objections. Later, on the request of the claimant- Kamala, Amarjith the son of the first respondent, was impleaded as the additional fourth respondent. Before the learned Arbitrator, parties have adduced oral as well as documentary evidence. After hearing the parties, the learned Arbitrator passed an award dated 30.11.2008. Most of the allegations of the claimant-Kamala were accepted and the award passed, by which dissolution and rendition of accounts of the aforesaid three partnership firms was ordered. Aggrieved by the award, the first respondent Manoharan and the additional fourth respondent, Amarjith moved applications under Section 34 of the Act. O.P.Arb.No.414/2009, O.P.Arb.No.415/2009 and O.P.Arb.No.416/2009 were filed by first respondent, Manoharan and O.P.Arb.No.420/2009, O.P.Arb.No.421/2009 and O.P.Arb.No.422/2009 were filed by the additio