JUDGMENT:

The present appeal has been filed by the appellants/petitioners challenging the judgment and decree in Arbitration O.P.No.1094 of 2009 on the file of I Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad, dated 03.10.2012.

2. For brevity and better understanding of the case, the parties shall be referred to as arrayed before the learned I Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District.

3. The brief facts of the case are that, the petitioners and the respondents are the partners of one partnership firm i.e., M/s.Vishnu Rice Mill, which is duly constituted as per the partnership deed, dated 19.01.1985. Originally, the said partnership firm was constituted with the respondent No.1 herein along with one Mr. Chandraiah, and the petitioners. Their main intention and course of business was to construct and run a rice mill in the land to an extent of Ac.1.00 guntas situated at Kharmanghat village, Saroornagar Mandal, belonging to the petitioners. It was agreed by the said partnership deed that the petitioner shall invest the land of Ac.1.00 gts., at Karmanghat village, Saroornagar Mandal, Hyderabad, and the other partners have to contribute an amount of ₹ 2,50,000/- for construction of the rice mill, and if there are any excess of amounts to be incurred, the amounts have to be borrowed from the banks and other financial institutions. Further, subsequently as one of the partners, Mr. P.Chandraiah, had intended to retire from the said partnership firm, the said partnership firm was reconstituted and in his place, the respondent Nos.2 and 3 were made partners and though the partnership firm was formed to carry on business of the rice mill, however, owing to several factors, the partners could not run the said business. Therefore, the same was leased out and rentals were being distributed among the partners in the profit sharing ratio in pursuance of the said partnership deed.

4. It is the case of the respondent No.1 that as the petitioners were not cooperating and developed clandestine attitude and were not inclined to run the business in a proper manner, the respondents were constrained to get the matter settled and accordingly, issued a notice on 18.01.2003 calling upon the petitioners to settle the accounts and assets of the firm to be distributed, and the petitioners gave a reply, dated 07.02.2003, in which the allegations made by the respondent Nos.1 to 4 were denied, however agreed for referring the matter to arbitration and suggested the name of President of Hyderabad and Ranga Reddy District Rice Mills Association as an Arbitrator and however, subsequently the matter did not move forward though there were certain persuasions through the mediators. Therefore, the respondents issued another notice, dated 29.08.2005, seeking settlement of the disputes and also sought for concurrence of the names indicated in the notice for appointing one among them as an arbitrator for adjudication of the disputes and the petitioners though gave a reply dated 14.09.2005 and denied specific claim of the respondents herein for settlement of accounts and distribution of the firm assets, and denied such other contentions. As there was arbitration clause in the said partnership deed, the respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein have filed an Arbitration Application No.7 of 2006 before this Court, and the learned single Judge of this Court, after hearing both sides in pursuance of the application filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, the Act, 1996), vide order dated 26.11.2006 has appointed an independent arbitrator to adjudicate the claims of both parties, and to conduct an inquiry and pass an appropriate award.

5. The learned arbitrator, after following the due procedure as contemplated under the Act 1996, has issued notices to the petitioners and all other concerned, and after following the due procedure, has passed Arbitration Award vide A.A.No.7 of 2005, dated 17.09.2009, by granting th