ORDER

Dated this the 13^th day of December, 2024 This Arbitration Request is filed by the petitioner, invoking Section

11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1996').

2. Petitioner and the 1^st respondent are partners of a registered partnership firm called ‘Moozhickal Fuels’. The said partnership firm was conducting a retail outlet (petrol pump) of Bharath Petroleum Corporation Limited (BPCL). They had on behalf of the firm entered into a ‘Dispensing Pump and Selling Licence’ with the BPCL for the conduct of the retail outlet.

3. The partnership agreement (Annexure A9) between the petitioner and the 1^st respondent contained an arbitration clause which reads as follows:

“16. In case of any dispute arising between the partners or their legal representative, the same shall be referred for decision of State Head (Retail) Kerala of BPCL under whose jurisdiction the Retail Outlet is situated for arbitration either by him or by his nominee/s. The decision of the said Arbitrator shall be conclusive and binding on all the partners.”

4. The partnership agreement had been drafted to comply with the mandates of the licence arrangement that the firm had with the BPCL and Clause 17 of the partnership agreement reads as follows:

‘No change in this partnership shall be made without formal approval from BPCL.’

5. It is the case of the petitioner that certain disputes arose between him and the 1^st respondent under the partnership agreement and towards resolving the same, he invoked the above arbitration clause and issued a letter (Annexure A11) to the respondents inter alia seeking initiation of arbitration proceedings as envisaged therein. To the petitioner's dismay, the respondents did not respond to the said letter.

6. Aggrieved by the respondents' alleged inaction, the petitioner has filed this petition invoking Section 11 of the Act of 1996 inter alia, averring that the 2^nd respondent ought to have acted in time and initiated the arbitration.

7. Service of notice was complete and the respondents entered in appearance through their respective counsel. The 1^st respondent has filed a counter affidavit and the petitioner has filed an affidavit in reply to the said counter affidavit.

8. In the counter affidavit, the 1^st respondent has inter alia alleged suppression of facts by the petitioner and has elaborated on the factual aspects of his disputes with the 1^st respondent. He sought to rely on Annexures R1 (a) to (c). It has been inter alia stated by him that even without an Arbitrator, the accounts could have been settled if the petitioner had come forward honestly and sincerely and had sought the dismissal of the Arbitration Request with costs. In the reply affidavit, the petitioner has produced Annexures A12 to A15 and has sought to refute the allegations of the 1st respondent in his counter affidavit by stating his own version of the events that had purportedly transpired between the parties.

9. I have heard Sri.Jose Thomas (Pala), learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Smt.P.K.Santhamma, learned counsel for the 1^st respondent and Smt.Pooja Menon, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 2^nd respondent.

10. It is noted that the pleadings do not deny the execution of Annexure A9 partnership agreement and the existence of arbitration clause. The counsel appearing for the petitioner and the 1^st respondent also concur regarding the same. They are also in unison that the parties had as per the arbitration clause agreed to appoint the 2^nd respondent as the Arbitrator to resolve their inter se disputes arising from Annexure A9. No objections are stated either by the petitioner or the 1^st respondent in appointing the 2^nd respondent as the Arbitrator as already resolved by them in the arbitration clause. It was also affirmed by the counsel that arbitration by the 2^nd respondent is preferred as the same would facilitate the resolution of the dispute faster and a new Arbitrator need not be appoint