IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (231)

ARB-241-2022 (O&M)

RESERVED ON 19.11.2024 DATE OF DECISION:- 07.01.2025 PRIKSHIT WADHWA AND ORS ...PETITIONERS VERSUS VINOD K WADHWA ...RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL Present:- Mr. Dheeraj Mahajan, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Vaibhav Sehgal, Advocate for the respondent.

****

SUVIR SEHGAL, J.

1. This petition has been filed under Section 11 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short “the Arbitration Act”) to adjudicate the disputes and differences between the parties.

2. Mr. Dheeraj Mahajan, counsel for the petitioners has submitted that petitioner No.1 is the son of petitioner No.2, who is the brother of the respondent. M/s V. Wadhwa & Co., a Chartered Accountancy firm, petitioner No.3, was started by them by way of a partnership. An Instrument of Partnership dated 01.05.2019, Annexure P-1, was executed and Clause 30, thereof, provided for the resolution of disputes through the medium of arbitration. Petitioner No.1 was partner to the extent of 30%, whereas petitioner No.2 and the respondent were partners to the extent of 35% each. He alleges that the respondent committed various acts detrimental to the interest of the firm and started a proprietorship CA firm with a similar name. When the petitioner protested, by notice dated 27.04.2022, Annexure P-2, respondent dissolved the firm without settling the accounts. Petitioner responded by sending a reply dated 29.04.2022, Annexure P-3, and as disputes arose between the parties, he served a legal notice dated 08.05.2022, Annexure P-5, invoking the arbitration clause. Vide communication dated 11.05.2022, Annexure P-6, respondent stated that the arbitration clause cannot be invoked as the partnership firm stands dissolved. Respondent filed a suit for rendition of accounts, Annexure P-7 and petitioner filed an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act for referring the dispute to the Arbitrator, which are pending. Counsel asserts that the dispute between the parties deserve to be resolved by referring the matter for adjudication to an Arbitrator.

3. Upon notice, petition has been contested by the respondent by filing a reply stating that the petitioners had filed a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act, which was withdrawn on 30.05.2022, Annexure R-1, by recording a statement that they have availed an appropriate remedy. An objection has been taken that present petition is not maintainable as a civil suit is pending between the parties and by interim order dated 16.06.2022, Annexure R-2, petitioners have been restrained from continuing the profession in the name of the partnership firm and from using the assets of the firm or from transferring its funds. It has been averred that as the petitioners have violated the injunction order, a contempt petition has been filed and an FIR, Annexure R-6, has also been registered against them. A stand has been taken that as partnership firm stands dissolved, the arbitration clause, which forms a part of the Instrument of Partnership cannot be given effect to. Although, it has not been objected to in writing, but Mr. Vaibhav Sehgal, counsel for the respondent has argued that the notice invoking the arbitration clause has been served only by petitioner No.2 and as there is no notice by petitioner No.1, instant petition at their hands is not maintainable.

4. I have heard counsel for the parties and considered their rival submission, besides examining the documents placed on the record.

5. At the outset, the Court would deal with the objection regarding the non-service of notice served by petitioner No.1. It is apposite to notice that the provision as laid down and Section 21 of the Arbitration Act, which is reproduced as under:-

“21. Commencement of arbitral proceedings - Unless otherwise agreed by the parties, the arbitral proceedings in respect of a particular dispute commence on the date on which a request for that dispute to be refer