The court established that parties must adhere to arbitration as per the arbitration clause in the Partnership Deed, affirming the arbitrator's jurisdiction over disputes arising from the partnership agreement.

ORDER :

ALOK ARADHE, J.

Mr. K.R.Raman, learned counsel representing Mr. Rahul Sarella, learned counsel for the applicant.

Mr. R.Sushanth Reddy, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 3 to 6.

2. This application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 has been filed seeking to appoint a sole arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the parties as per Clause 19 of the Partnership Deed dated 01.04.1994.

3. Facts giving rise to filing of this application briefly stated are that a Partnership Deed was executed on 01.04.1994 between the applicant and respondent Nos.1 to 6, who are members of the family. Clause 19 of the aforesaid Partnership Deed contains an arbitration clause. The applicant sent a legal notice on 08.11.2022 to respondent No.3 and M/s.Syed and Syed, Chartered Accountants to provide information, clarification and documents in relation to the firm by e-mail. Thereafter another notice dated 03.01.2023 was issued to each of the respondents by registered post calling upon them to furnish the documents, information and clarification related to the firm. A reply notice on behalf of the respondents was sent on 12.01.2023 wherein the claim of the applicant was denied. The applicant thereupon issued another notice dated 14.03.2023 informing the respondents that the applicant has dissolved the firm under Section 43 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 and called upon the respondents to settle her accounts. Respondent No.4 submitted a reply on 12.04.2023 to the aforesaid notice.

4. Thereafter the applicant sent a notice to the respondents and nominated Mr. Chikkam Vijaymohan, a retired District Judge as sole arbitrator. Thereafter the applicant published a notice in “Deccan Chronicle, Eenadu and Sisasat” Daily Newspapers on 11.07.2023 stating that the firm has been dissolved as required under Section 45 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932. Thereafter this application has been filed seeking appointment of an arbitrator.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the respondents have not disputed the execution of the Partnership Deed dated 01.04.1994 and had not denied the existence of the arbitration clause. It is submitted that the dispute has arisen between the parties, which is required to be resolved in the manner agreed to by the parties.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 3 to 6 has submitted that the power of the arbitrator under the Partnership Deed dated 01.04.1994 is circumscribe and the relief to claim settlement of the accounts is outside Clause 19 of the Partnership Deed dated 01.04.1994 executed between the parties. It is further submitted that dispute relating to insolvency and winding up matters is a non-arbitrable dispute. In support of aforesaid submission, reliance has been placed on decisions of Supreme Court in Booz Allen & Hamilton Inc. v. SBI Home Finance Ltd., [(2011) 5 SCC 532] and Duro Felguera, S.A. v. Gangavaram Port Limited , (2017) 9 SCC 729

7. I have considered the rival submissions made on both sides and have perused the record.

8. Before proceeding further, it is apposite to mention that the existence of the Partnership Deed dated 01.04.1994 as well as the arbitration clause has not been denied on behalf of contesting respondents.

9. Clause 19 of the Partnership Deed dated 01.04.1994 reads as under:

“19. Should any dispute or doubt or question arise between the Partners in respect of the Partnership or its affairs in respect of any matter touching the construction or interpretation of any matter of this Deed, the same shall be referred to arbitration in ac