The main legal point established in the judgment is that the claim of the appellant, as a legal heir, was not barred by limitation. The court emphasized the need for arbitration proceedings to commence within 90 days of an interim order.

JUDGMENT :

P. Dhanabal,J.

[Prayer: Original Side Appeal No.83 of 2014 filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 read with Clause 15 of the Letters Patent read with Order XXXVI Rule (1) of the Original Side Rules, read with Commercial Court under Section 13 of Commercial Court Act, 2015 against the order passed by the Learned Single Judge in A.No.97 of 2022 dated 06.06.2022 on the file of this Court.]

This Original Side Appeal No.83 of 2014 has been preferred as against the order passed by the Learned Single Judge in Arbitration Application No.97 of 2022 dated 06.06.2022. Wherein the Appellant herein Mr. Krishna Kumar Mundhra has filed an Arbitration Application in Application No.97 of 2022 for appointment of a Receiver to take charge of the Firm M/s.Phusaram Munthada and conduct forensic audit from 2011 to till date, pending disposal of the arbitration proceedings.

2. The Learned Single Judge after hearing both parties, closed the application by stating that it is appropriate to close the captioned application making it clear that no view or opinion is expressed by this Court either on the merits of the matter or on the sections 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (herein after referred to as Act) as prayed in the Application and the rights of the applicant to come up with application filed under section 9 of the Act with similar prayer subject to what happens before the Hon'ble Division Bench are also preserved and protected. Captioned applications disposed of as closed albeit preserving the rights of the applicant in the above said manner.

3. There was a partnership firm in the name and style of M/s.Phusaram Munthada entered into the business of jewellery. The partnership was more of family concern and all the family members were made as partners. In the year 1982, a deed was executed, dated 28.8.1982 between the father Mr. Jeevanlal Mundhra, this appellant and respondents 1 & 2. Thereafter, this appellant retired from the partnership firm with effect from 31.3.2011. However he continued to be the one of the Director in the Private Limited Company, incorporated under the same name i.e., M/s. Phusaram Munthada Private Limited. Thereafter, the mother of the petitioner Mrs. Maina Bai Mundhra was inducted as a partner and entered into partnership deed on 01.04.2011 and thereby she was entitled to 1/3rd share over the partnership firm. Though the petitioner was retired from partnership firm on 31.03.2011, his accounts were not settled and he also believed, since his mother was a partner in the firm, he would be entitled to its share and profits. While the facts are being so, the petitioner's mother died on 01.04.2020 and the partners were reduced into two partners. The 2nd respondent also retired from the partnership firm on the same day i.e., 1.4.2020. Thus immediately after retirement of R2 on the date of retirement the partnership firm got dissolved by operation of law. But the first respondent included the 3rd and 4th respondent as partners in the said firm on the same day. The first respondent in only surveying partner on the death and retirement of other partners cannot continue the business by inducting his kith and kin. On the date of death of his mother, the petitioner was entitled to the share in the assets and good will of the partnership firm. The petitioner also came to know that there were several fraudulent activities and diversion of funds were also taking place under the partnership firm. The petitioner caused notice to the respondents on 12.1.2021 and there was continuous correspondences there on, but the respondents have not given any accounts to the petitioner.

4. After hearing the both parties, the learned Single Judge closed the petition. As against the order passed by the Learned Single Judge, the present Appeal has been filed on the following grounds:-

The impugned order is against the facts and against the well settled proposition of Law.

1. The Learned Single Judge ought to