ORDER

Since the subject matter and events leading to the dispute in the Original Petition and the three Applications are the same a common order is pronounced in all the four proceedings.

2. The following are the proceedings and their respective reliefs. (i)O.P.No.373 of 2020 is filed invoking Section 11 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (herein after called the Act), for appointing an arbitrator to resolve the disputes that has arisen between the petitioner and the respondent, arising out of deed of partnership dated 01.08.1984 which is subsequently amended by the deeds of partnership dated 01.04.1989, 08.07.1992 and 16.04.2001.

(ii)O.A.No.350 of 2019 is filed by the petitioners for an injunction restraining the respondent, his men, agents, representatives from transferring alienating or creating rights in favour of the third parties in respect of the partnership assets and properties including the Bank accounts, investments, securities standing in the name of the partnership firm.

(iii)O.A.No.351 of 2019 is filed by the petitioners for the grant of an order appointing the Court Receiver to take over the business and assets of the firm including their Bank accounts, licenses, trade marks etc.

(iv)A.No.6466 of 2019 is filed by the petitioners for the grant of order directing the respondent to deposit all rents and other income received from the business and assets of the partnership firm.

The facts giving rise to the dispute:

3.On 01.08.1984 the firm M/s.Ramraj Enterprises, herein after referred to as the Firm was constituted by one Sharadha Ramakrishnan, the mother of the petitioners and the respondent herein and the respondent for carrying on various businesses which has been set out detail in the deed of partnership. On 24.04.1985, a property measuring an extent of approximately 10,000 Sq.mts together with building was purchased by the firm. The property in question was situate at plot Nos. E2 and E3, MMDA Industrial Complex, Maraimalai Nagar. The property was initially purchased under a Lease-cum-Sale Deed.

4.Thereafter, the Firm was reconstituted with the induction of C.R.Ramakrishnan, the father of the petitioners and the respondent and the deed of partnership dated 01.04.1989 was entered into between the three partners. Once again the partnership deed was revised and the respondent was designated as Managing Partner. There was some revision in the Terms and Condition of the deed. By a deed dated 16.04.2001, the partnership deed was once again revised and Sharadha Ramakrishnan was also designated as the Managing Partner along with the respondent. The deed amended the capital contribution of each partners and the profit sharing was to be equal amongst the partners. Meanwhile, the sale deed was executed in favour of the Firm by MMDA as per the terms of the Lease-cum-Sale agreement on 10.10.1990.

5.The property of the firm was leased out to M/s.Anvel Valves Private Limited on a monthly rental of Rs.1,60,000/- subject to 5% increase at the expiry of the lease period. The lease deed dated 01.02.2009 was also entered into between the respondent and the said M/s.Anvel Valves Private Limited. On 11.09.2009, one of the partners C.R.Ramakrishnan, father of petitioners and respondent died. The said Ramakrishnan had left a Will dated 04.04.2007. Under the said Will he had bequeathed his 23% share in the firm in favour of the petitioners.

6.After the death of the said C.R.Ramakrishnan, the partneship was continued between Sharadha Ramakrishnan and the respondent herein. It is claimed that Sharadha Ramakrishnan had executed a settlement deed and Will prior to her death and under the Will dated 31.08.2013 she had bequeathed her share in the partnership firm in favour of the petitioners. Thereafter, the said Sharadha Ramakrishnan had died on 14.12.2013 leaving behind her surviving the petitioners and the respondent.

7.The partnership was thereafter continued by the respondent by inducting his wife into the partnership. This has b