1. This Arbitration Request is filed invoking S.11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") seeking to appoint an Arbitrator with respect to disputes and differences that have arisen between the petitioner and respondents under Annexure I and Annexure III.

2. Petitioner and the 2nd respondent were partners of the 1st respondent firm TULSI VKL Developers which was constituted vide Annexure I partnership deed dated 23/11/2015. The said partnership deed contained an arbitration clause at Clause 16. The business of the 1st respondent firm was that of property developers and builders. Annexure II understanding termed as 'partners of understanding' was entered into between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent on 24/11/2015 with respect to the sale and development of 5 acres of land scheduled in the said document and situated in Puthencruz. Villas were proposed to be constructed on the said land after dividing the same into plots. Petitioner contends that as per the Annexure II the entire responsibility of development of the said land was upon the 2nd respondent. Disputes arose between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent concerning the project envisaged under Annexure II. The petitioner contends that with respect to the sale of the plots developed pursuant to Annexure II, an amount of Rs.2,73,61,690/- is due to him from respondents 1 and 2. It is also contended that over and above such sale of land, the profit earned on account of the sale of villas constructed thereon at an average rate of Rs.12 lakh per villa, which is Rs.6,84,00,000/- and 50% of which works out to Rs.3,42,00,000/- is also his entitlement. According to the petitioner, the total amount due to be paid to each partner was Rs.6,15,61,690/- along with interest and the same had not paid. It is thus the contention of the petitioner that, despite the 1st respondent firm having received such huge profit, the petitioner was not paid his legitimate share and this led him to issue a resignation letter dated 03/02/2022 inter alia seeking settlement of the amounts due to him. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondents 1 and 2 offered to pay the amount due to the petitioner on execution of a deed of retirement from the 1st respondent partnership firm and hence a deed of retirement dated 01/04/2022 produced as Annexure III was entered into. By the said deed of retirement, the petitioner resigned from the 1st respondent and the wife of the 2nd respondent (3rd respondent in this A.R.) was made a partner of the 1st respondent firm. The said deed of retirement also contained an arbitration clause at Clause 16. In so far as the amounts due remained unpaid and since a dispute had thus arisen between the parties under the relevant arbitration clause, petitioner issued to the respondents a notice (Annexure A IV) invoking the arbitration clause on 28/08/2024, and nominating a retired Judge of this Court as the Arbitrator. The respondents, however, failed to act upon the invocation and hence the petitioner has filed this Arbitration Request invoking S.11 of the Act.

3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents inter alia contending that Annexure I partnership deed had been reconstituted based on Annexure III Deed of Reconstitution and as per which the petitioner has retired with effect from 01/04/2022. Since the petitioner has thus retired, it is contended by the respondents that no further claim would lie against the respondent firm or against the other continuing partners. After having retired unconditionally there cannot be any claim nor would an Arbitration Request lie seeking appointment of Arbitrator. No Arbitration Request is maintainable under Annexure I partnership deed nor under Annexure III reconstitution deed. The wording used in Annexure III is "Dispute between the partners". Since the petitioner is not a partner under Annexure III, he cannot invoke the arbitration clause therein nor file the Arbitration Requ