The main legal point established in the judgment is that the fulfillment of conditions for retirement from a partnership and the requirement of stamp duty under the Stamp Act, 1899 are crucial factors in determining the entitlement to invoke the arbitration clause.

Headnote:
Arbitration - Partnership Dispute - Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 11 - Article 49 Schedule 1-A of the Stamp Act, 1899 - [Arbitration] - [Partnership Dispute] - [Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 11; Stamp Act, 1899, Article 49] - The court discussed the invocation of arbitration clause under the partnership deed, the requirement of stamp duty for invoking the arbitration clause, and the interpretation of the Stamp Act, 1899 in the context of partnership retirement and property transfer. The court held that the applicant was entitled to invoke the arbitration clause under the partnership deed dated 4-2-2008 as the condition of leaving the firm had not been fulfilled, and the stamp duty under Article 49-B(a) of the Stamp Act, 1899 did not apply in this case.
Fact of the Case:

The dispute arose from a partnership deed involving the retirement of partners and the invocation of arbitration clause under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The non-applicants opposed the arbitration on the grounds of retirement and stamp duty payment.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the condition of leaving the firm had not been fulfilled, and the applicant was still a partner in the firm, thus entitled to invoke the arbitration clause under the partnership deed dated 4-2-2008. The objections raised by the non-applicants were rejected, and all arbitration applications were allowed.
Issues: The issues involved the interpretation of partnership deeds, retirement conditions, invocation of arbitration clause, and the requirement of stamp duty under the Stamp Act, 1899.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the applicant's retirement from the firm was subject to the condition of executing a sale deed, which had not been fulfilled, making the applicant still a partner in the firm. The court also rejected the objection regarding the notice for invoking the arbitration clause and clarified the stamp duty requirement under the Stamp Act, 1899.
Final Decision: All arbitration applications were allowed, and the dispute between the partners was referred to the sole arbitrator.

ORDER (Heard through Video Conferencing) : – Regard being had to the similitude in the controversy involved in the present case, on the joint request of the parties, matters are heard. Some facts are being taken from AC No. 84/2018 in order to understand the controversy between the contesting parties.

All the applicants have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court by filing the above arbitration cases under section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking the appointment of an arbitrator to resolve the dispute with respondent No. 1 to 4 (in AC no 84/2018).

2. The facts of the case, in short, are as under : –

2.1. On 3-8-2007, a partnership Firm in the name of ‘Shri Shiva Construction’ (hereinafter referred to as Firm) came into existence with two partners namely (i) Virendra Modi and (ii) Nitesh Khandelwal. The Firm has its registered office at 23 Shraddhanand Marg, Indore and is mainly engaged in the business of real estate, construction and development. On 4-2-2008, the Firm has undergone a change, when Nitesh Khandelwal left the Firm and in his place, 13 new partners joined the Firm, and the partnership deed dated 4-2-2008 was executed. Clause-6 of the partnership deed has described the share of 14 partners in the Firm. Applicant-Deepak Khandelwal got 9% share in the Firm. Clause 11 of the partnership deed deals with the resolution of the dispute between the partners by way of arbitration under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and for all-purpose, the Court at Indore shall have the jurisdiction.

2.2. On 27-1-2015, the partnership has undergone another change because two partners namely Prafull s/o Ramchandra Ijardar and Gyarasilal S/o Harlal Agrawal left the Firm leaving 12 partners in the Firm.

2.3. After some time, another partnership deed was registered on 27-10-2015 when these applicants have decided to leave the Firm leaving the remaining four partners namely (i) Virendra Modi, (ii) Vimal Modi, (iii) Vinay Modi and (iv) Smt. Manorma Modi i.e. non-applicants No. 1 to 4 as partners in the Firm. As per contents of the partnership deed dated 27-10-2015, except applicants-Deepak Khandelwal, others retiring partners viz Gopaldas, Rajesh, Smt. Shobha, Rajkumar Anand, Manoharlal and Bilkis Bee received their shares from Virendra Modi in the form of money in cash. So far as the applicant-Deepak Khandelwal is concerned, he agreed to take a land admeasuring 16000 (actual is 17000) sq. ft. situated at Shivdham Colony from ‘Shri Shiva Construction’ in lieu of share in the Firm. It is mentioned in the partnership deed that after registration of the sale deed of said land, this application shall be removed from the Firm. The share of the four partners has been ascertained w.e.f. 27-10-2015 in new the partnership deed. The deed also contains an arbitration clause for the resolution of disputes between the partners which is under invocation by these ACs. The said deed was registered with the Registrar of Stamp on 27-10-2015.

2.4. According to the applicant-Deepak Khandelwal, a relinquished deed was also executed for leaving an area of 3804 sq. ft. of 17000 sq ft. land mentioned in the partnership deed dated 27-10-2015. A deed was prepared but Virendra Modi did not remain present for registration in the office of the sub-registrar. It is further submitted by the applicant-Deepak Khandelwal that no sale deed has been executed by the non-applicants in respect of the sale of 17000 sq. ft. land by partnership deed dated 27-10-2015, hence, he is still one of the partners of the Firm by deed dated 4-2-2008 and entitled to know the affairs of the Form.

2.5. The applicant-Deepak Khandelwal served a notice dated 7-2-2017 demanding details of accounts, transactions, income, expenditure etc, being a partner. The aforesaid notice was replied by the non-applicants vide reply dated 20-2-2017 stating that the applicant is no more member of the Firm to claim details of accounts and other transactions. The applicant served anoth

Click Here to Read the rest of this document