Court confirmed the timely filing of an arbitration request under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, ruling that failure to commence proceedings does not extinguish the right to arbitrate.

1. Petitioner filed this Arbitration Request, invoking S.11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short "the Act of 1996") seeking to appoint a sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes and differences between the petitioner and the respondent arising out of a partnership agreement.

2. Petitioner and the respondent are partners of a firm by name 'Orchard Builders and Developers'. The partnership agreement dated 04.10.2012 is produced as Annexure A1. The object of the partnership is inter alia stated in the deed as acquiring, constructing and selling property. The deed contained an arbitration clause at Clause 21 which reads as follows:

"21. That in case any dispute arises thereafter among the partners or representatives of the deceased partner relating to any term or condition or with regard to the partnership assets / liabilities, the same shall be referred to arbitration and the provisions of the India Arbitration Act shall apply thereto."

3. The partnership firm was registered with the Registrar of Firms and a copy of the acknowledgment of registration of firms issued by the Office of the Registrar of Firms is produced as Annexure A1 (a). A parcel of land situated in Coonoor in Nilagiri District, Tamil Nadu, was purchased and construction was commenced thereon. Subsequently, disputes cropped up between the petitioner and the respondent on various counts regarding the working of the partnership. It is the contention of the petitioner that while the respondent was abroad and showed little interest in the conduct of the partnership, the petitioner had met all expenses and also had put in personal efforts to further the construction work. Later on, when the petitioner developed a reasonable apprehension that the respondent was taking steps to alienate the said property in Coonoor to strangers, he moved Annexure A2 petition under S.9 of the Act of 1996 before the District Court, Manjeri, seeking an injunction against alienation of the subject property. The respondent entered appearance before the District Court, Manjeri and filed a detailed counter in S.9 Petition (Annexure A3). The District Court, after being convinced of the partnership deed and the arbitration agreement therein, granted a temporary injunction as revealed by Annexure A4. It is the contention of the petitioner that in the meanwhile the arbitration clause was invoked and an Arbitrator was nominated and the same was concurred by the respondent. The said Arbitrator entered on reference and issued notice to the parties as revealed by Annexure A5. The petitioner filed Annexure A6 claim petition before the Arbitrator on 16.03.2020 and the respondent filed a statement in counter (Annexure A7). Subsequently, the respondent filed Annexure A8 petition before the Arbitrator raising doubts regarding his impartiality / independence and this led the Arbitrator to withdraw from the proceedings by issuing Annexure A9 notice of withdrawal dated 04.05.2023 to both sides. In the meanwhile, at the instance of the respondent, the temporary injunction granted earlier was vacated by the District Court inter alia pointing out that the mandate to commence arbitration within 90 days had lapsed. Pursuant to such lifting of the interim injunction by the Addl. District Court, the respondent hastily alienated the subject property to third parties. The petitioner has filed a Review Petition (Annexure A10) before the District Court, Manjeri, seeking to set aside the said order of vacating the temporary injunction which is stated to be pending. Towards further pursuing the arbitration proceedings which had been left midway due to the withdrawal of