A request for arbitration must clearly detail the particular dispute to satisfy Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, triggering the commencement of proceedings and the calculation of limitation.

ORDER :

1. Under the name and style “M/s. Roofs and Shades” applicants and respondents 1 and 2 formed a partnership firm with equal partnership. The partnership deed was executed on 5.2.2005. A copy of the same has been produced as Annexure-A1. The 1^st respondent was the Managing Partner. According to the applicants, he along with the 2^nd respondent- his wife, was managing the day-to-day affairs of the firm. Accounts were settled and profit was divided till the financial year 2010-11.

2. Later, another partnership deed was executed between the applicants and respondents 1 and 2 on 6.4.2011 with the name of the partnership as “M/s.Roofs and Shades Structural Solutions”. According to the applicants, the business of “Roofs and Shades” was carried over and continued by “Roofs and Shades Structural Solutions”. Management of the firm continued with the respondents 1 and 2.

3. It is alleged that in October 2019, the 1^st applicant demanded the respondents 1 and 2 to provide the books of accounts for verification and for settlement of accounts for the year 2011 and also for sharing the profits from 2011 to 2019. However, respondents 1 and 2 did not provide the books of accounts. On 4.5.2020, there was a joint meeting of the partners at the residence of respondents 1 and 2 and consensus was arrived at regarding settling of accounts and management of the firm. Nevertheless, the commitments made in the meetings were not discharged by the respondents 1 and 2. It is also claimed that the respondents 1 and 2 had agreed to induct the 1^st applicant as the managing partner.

4. Thereafter, there arose disputes with regard to sharing of profits. There were several discussions and communications between the parties. Since the issues could not be resolved, applicants, as per e-mail dated 29.9.2023, suggested to nominate a renowned Engineer as the Arbitrator. A printout of the e-mail communication is produced as Annexure-A3. There was no response from the respondents 1 and 2 and the only option left to the applicants was to initiate appropriate proceedings under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,1996.

5. CMA (Arb.) No.1/2024 was filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,1996 [henceforth mentioned as ‘the Act’ for conciseness] before the Commercial Court, Kozhikode by the applicants for various interim reliefs. Respondents 1 and 2 filed a counter affidavit. They stated in the counter affidavit that on the basis of mutual understanding between the applicants and themselves, they started some other firms and details of the firms were stated in the affidavit. Applicants allege that the partners of those firms are close relatives as well as friends of respondents 1 and 2. Respondents 1 and 2 filed I.A.No.2/2024 questioning the maintainability of CMA and it was dismissed by the Commercial Court by order dated 30.9.2024. Challenging the order passed by the Commercial Court, O.P.(C)No.2338/2024 was filed before this Court and the said case is still pending.

6. According to the applicants, different firms constituted by the respondents 1 and 2 are in fact managed by them and all the firms are constituted for the same purpose of the business of “M/s.Roofs and Shades” w