Appointment of an Arbitrator is warranted in the presence of a dispute, emphasizing parties' freedom to raise claims and counterclaims during arbitration proceedings.

O R D E R

1. This is an Arbitration Request filed under Section

11(6) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, to appoint an Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute arising from Annexure A1 Partnership Deed. The petitioner and respondents 1 to 3 are partners of the firm formed as per Annexure A1 Deed.

2. The application is opposed by the respondents 2 and

3 by filing Counter Affidavit.

3. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt.

Chithra Chandrasekharan and the learned counsel for the 1^st respondent, Smt. Philia Koshy and the learned counsel for the respondents 2 & 3, Sri. Wintson K.V.

4. Annexure A1 contains an Arbitration Clause as Clause No.14. As per Annexure A3, the petitioner has sent a notice for the dissolution of the firm. When the said demand was not accepted by the respondents, the petitioner issued Annexure A5 notice suggesting the names of three persons to be appointed as a sole Arbitrator. The respondents 2 and 3 send Annexure A8 Reply, stating that they need the cooperation to continue the business and nothing is stated about the request for arbitration. Hence, this Arbitration Request is filed.

5. The learned counsel for the 1^st respondent supported the prayer of the petitioner, stating that there is mismanagement in the business of the firm conducted by the 2^nd and 3^rd respondents, excluding the petitioner and the 1^st respondent.

6. The contention of the 2^nd and 3^rd respondents is that the Arbitration Clause contained in Annexure A1 Deed does not take in the dissolution of the firm. The contention is that several cases are pending between the parties, including criminal cases. The entire records of the firm are with the petitioner, which are necessary for dispute resolution.

7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the petitioner and the 1^st respondent contended that the 2^nd and 3^rd respondents have been conducting the business excluding the petitioner and the 1^st respondent from the business and without accounting the business to them. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the entire records relating to the firm are with the respondents 2 and 3, who have been conducting the business of the firm and the petitioner is not in possession of any of the records of the firm.

8. The contention raised by the parties would show that there is a dispute between the parties, warranting the appointment of an Arbitrator to resolve the same in view of the Arbitration Clause in Annexure A1. The nature of the reliefs which could be sought by the parties in the arbitration is a matter to be decided by the arbitrator after submission of the claims by the parties before the Arbitrator and this Court has no jurisdiction to enter findings on the same while exercising referral jurisdiction under Section 11 (6) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996. Hence, this Arbitration Request is liable to be allowed.

9. Both sides requested for appointment of an Arbitrator from Pathanamthitta.

10. Accordingly, this Arbitration Request is allowed, and it is ordered as follows:

1. The Kerala High Court Arbitration Centre is directed to nominate a District Judge (Retd.) from Panel-III, preferably from Pathanamthitta, as the Sole Arbitrator to resolve the disputes that have arisen between the petitioner and the respondents under Annexure A1 Deed.

2. The learned Arbitrator may entertain all issues between the parties in connection with the said agreement, including questions of jurisdiction and limitation, if any, raised by the parties. All contentions of the parties including maintainability of the claims and prayers are left open and they are at liberty to raise their claims and counterclaims, if any, before the