Ms. Chitra Venkataraman, J.

The Original Petition is against the interim award dated 7. 2008 passed by the learned Arbitrator wherein, the learned Arbitrator held that the firm Hindustan Life Care, first petitioner herein, would stand dissolved with effect from 20.12.2005; that the first respondent is entitled to share of profits of the firm subsequent to 20.12.2005 till the accounts are fully settled under Section 37 of the Act. The learned Arbitrator directed the petitioners herein to produce the accounts of the firm from 4. 2005 till the date of dissolution and all subsequent accounts till the date of final settlement before the Tribunal within two weeks. The learned Arbitrator directed the parties to file a list of panel of auditors to inspect the accounts and on the Tribunal appointing the Chartered Accountant, the accounts shall be scrutinized to find out the amount due to the parties.

2. The petitioners herein questioned the award primarily on the ground that the learned Arbitrator exceeded his jurisdiction in ordering a dissolution of the firm. The main question that was posed before the learned Arbitrator was as to whether the first respondent was entitled to dissolution of the partnership concern or entitled to retirement only from the firm. Referring to the various clauses in the partnership agreement, learned counsel pointed out that the interim award of the learned Arbitrator directing dissolution of the Company under Section 44 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 on just and equitable grounds went against the terms of the partnership agreement and hence, the award is without jurisdiction. He pointed out that even on the strength of the evidence of the first respondent herein, the Application made by the first respondent has to be rejected that no ground existed for dissolution.

3. The facts leadings to the invoking of the arbitration clause are as follows:

Under agreement dated 4. 1995, the parties herein entered into a partnership by name Hindustan Life Care, the first petitioner herein. The partnership consisted of four partners, viz., the second, third and fourth petitioners and the first respondent herein. The business of the firm was to deal in surgical disposables and Surgical equipments. The profit sharing ratio was equal. Under Clause 6 of the Partnership Deed, Exhibit C-1, it was agreed that the partners of the firm would not carry on any business activity which would complete with the business of the firm, the first petitioner herein (hereinafter referred to as (HLC). Considering the growth and the opportunities of the business of the firm, parties entered into a fresh supplementary agreement dated 26. 2004 whereby, the first petitioner firm was to continue the same line of business and the total turnover would be equally distributed among the three field working partners, namely, 3rd and 4th petitioners and the first respondent herein for the purpose of sale territories. It was agreed that these partners would be entitled to an incentive at the rate of 10% of the turnover on each one of their territories. Under Clause 13, the parties agreed that none of the partners would enter into any agreement directly or indirectly with the principals with whom the firm HLC was associated. Clause 16 provided that the partners shall not promote any competitive brand of TED anti-embolism stockings of Tyco Health Care either directly or indirectly. In the event of any such activity undertaken, such partner has to compensate a sum of Rs.25 lakhs to each of the other partners of the first petitioner firm. It was also agreed that in the event of any one of the partners retiring from the partnership, for a period of one year from the date of retirement, the said partner shall not market the anesthesia and respiratory range of products or any other specific products. In the event of breach of any condition, the partner, who contravened, should compensate at Rs.10 lakhs to each of the other partners. The parties