The specific language and scope of arbitration clauses in partnership agreements are crucial in determining the referability of disputes to arbitration.

1. Defendant No. 1 has approached this Court through the present revision petition. The challenge is to order dated January 17, 2003 passed by the learned trial Court. Vide the aforesaid impugned order , an application filed by defendant No. 1 under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), has been dismissed.

2. The plaintiff-respondents filed a suit for declaration that the firm M/s. Ahluwalia and Company represented by defendant No. 1 and other defendants No. 2 to 7 stood dissolved after the expiry of three months notice dated 9/04/2001. A further claim was made for rendition of accounts of partnership business started vide partnership deed dated 1/04/1975. It was also claimed that the plaintiffs did not want to continue with the partnership and wanted to retire and recover their shares. Additionally, a prayer was also made for restraining the defendants from making any addition and alternation in the partnership business till the rendition of accounts and not to transfer any property of the partnership business in any manner, till the share of the plaintiffs was settled and recovered.

3. On appearance before the learned trial Court, defendant No. 1 filed an application under Section 8 of the Act. It was claimed that in the partnership deed between the parties there is an arbitration agreement and it had been categorically provided that one Ramesh Kumar Dhiman would be the sole arbitrator of the parties and his decision would be final and binding upon them. On that basis, it was claimed that the matter was liable to be referred under the provisions of the Act and the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit.

4. This application was contested by the plaintiffs. They claimed that Clause 22 of the partnership deed was not of general operation and merely pertained to such disputes which were not covered under the partnership deed. However, the dispute between the parties was covered under a specific clause under which one of the partners could retire and seek the rendition of accounts after the service of notice. Accordingly, it was claimed that the matter was not referable to the Arbitrator. On that basis, it was claimed that the Civil Court had jurisdiction to try the suit.

5. The learned trial Court, on the basis of the interpretation of Clauses 17 and 22 of the partnership agreement held that the matter was not referable to the Arbitrator and as such declined the prayer of defendant No. 1 and accordingly, dismissed the application.

6. Defendant No. 1 has accordingly approached this Court through the present revision petition.

7. I have heard Shri Sudeep Mahajan, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri S. C. Chhabra, the learned counsel for the respondents and with their assistance have also gone through the record of the case.

8. Shri Sudeep Mahajan, the learned counsel for the petitioners has argued thai there was Clause 22 in the partnership agreement which provided for reference of disputes between the partners to an Arbitrator. On that basis, it was been contended that since there was an arbitration agreement between the parties, therefore, it was mandatory for the Civil Court to refer the dispute to an Arbitrator and the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to deal with the matter.

9. On the other hand, Shri S. C. Chhabra, the learned counsel for the respondents has argued that the arbitration clause in the partnership agreement was not a general clause of arbitration but was limited only to such disputes which were not covered under the deed of partnership. Shri Chhabra maintains that the claim made by the plain tiffs in the suit was not covered under the aforesaid clause in any manner, since the dissolution of partnership of one of the partners was covered under Clause 17 of the partnership agreement, which provided that any partner could retire from partnership after giving three months clear notice to the other partners in writing and on the exp