The court held that an arbitrator can be appointed to resolve disputes within a partnership agreement, including dissolution matters, provided the application is timely and properly invoked.

ORDER :

SUBODH ABHYANKAR, J.

1. Heard.

2. This application under Section 11 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short 'the Act of 1996') has been filed by the applicant, one of the partners of a partnership firm M/s. P. N. Builders and Developers, for appointment of Arbitrator to settle the dispute between the parties.

3. The case of the applicant is that a partnership deed dated 15.07.2010 was executed between the applicant and the non- applicants in the name and style of M/s. P. N. Builders and Developers. The aforesaid partnership firm was formed for the purposes of dealing in lands and immovable properties, buying, selling and developing the same, and for other allied purposes.

4. According to the applicant certain disputes have arisen between the parties, which led the applicant to issue a legal notice dated 03.03.2022, asking the non-applicants to close the bank accounts and to restrain from dealing with the land of the partnership firm. However, as the aforesaid notice was not responded to by the non-applicants, a notice dated 16.11.2023, for appointment of arbitrator was also issued by the applicant through his Counsel wherein the applicant had also suggested the certain names one of whom could be appointed as the sole Arbitrator for settlement of disputes between the parties as is prescribed in Clause 16 of the Partnership Deed. However, as the aforesaid notice was also not replied to by the non-applicants, the present application has been filed.

5. Counsel for the applicant has submitted that various disputes have arisen between the parties as have been raised in the notice of arbitration dated 16.11.2023, and since the non- applicants have also not shown any interest in the appointment of the sole Arbitrator, despite five names were recommended by the applicant, the Arbitrator may be appointed by this Court only.

6. The prayer is vehemently opposed by the counsel for the non-applicants. A reply to the application has also been filed by the non-applicant No.3, which has also been adopted by the non-applicant Nos.1 and 2 as informed by their counsel Shri Avdesh Polekar.

7. In this reply, the non-applicant No.3 has taken various grounds for not entertaining the present application, including that of, i) the locus of the applicant, and ii) the invocation of the arbitration clause against one Ashok Patel, against whom, it is alleged that he is running the firm without any legal basis, and iii) the claim of the applicant is stale and is barred by limitation also, as also iv) the relief of declaration that any sale made without the consent and permission of the applicant, is void ab initio, is a declaratory relief, cannot be granted by the Arbitrator, and finally v) that the applicant has also sought the dissolution of the partnership firm, which falls under the jurisdiction of the 'Court' only and cannot be ordered by the Arbitrator in terms of the provision of Section 44 of the Indian PARTNERSHIP ACT , 1932. Counsel has also relied upon Article 137 appended to the Indian LIMITATION ACT , 1963 and has drawn the attention of this Court to para 7.7 and 7.10 of the application.

8. Shri Nitin Phadke, learned counsel for the non-applicant No.3 has submitted that there are certain matters, which can only be decided by the Civil Court only, including that of fixing the responsibility of Ashok Patel, against whom the allegations have been levelled, but who is not a party to the partnership f