Only parties to an arbitration agreement can invoke relief under arbitration provisions, and retired partners lose their rights.

JUDGMENT:

(per HON’BLE THE JUSTICE SRI ALOK KUMAR VERMA)

The present appeal has been filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as, “the Act, 1996”) against the order dated 15.09.2021, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, (Commercial Court), Dehradun in Arbitration Case No.69 of 2020, “Shri Mohd. Yusuf and four others vs. Shri Ashish Aggarwal and another”, whereby the application under Section 9 of the Act, 1996, filed by the appellants, has been dismissed on the ground that the appellants have neither made out a prima facie case nor is the balance of convenience in their favour nor they will suffer any irreparable loss in the event of being denied injunction because the appellants are not “partners” in the light of the arbitration clause.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

3. Mr. Arvind Vashisth, the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellants, submitted that the appellant no.5 “M/s. Indian Hospitality” is a partnership firm at will, registered under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act, 1932”). The appellant nos. 1, 2, 3 i.e. Shri Mohd. Yusuf, Smt. Shamim, Shri Momin Ali and one Tehsin Malik formed the said partnership firm on 15.02.2008 for doing business of civil construction of residential and commercial buildings, roads, bridges, sewerage works, water supply (urban and rural), purchase/sale/development of land, real estate developers, establishment and running of educational institutes, hostel, hotel, restaurant, wedding point, club etc. and such other business as mutually agreed to by all the partners. Shri Tehsin Malik, partner, retired from the said firm on 26.10.2009. Mr. Arvind Vashisth, the learned Senior Advocate, submitted that in the year, 2016, the appellant no.1 took a loan of Rs.2,06,89,000/- from the respondent no.1. The appellants and the respondent no.1 agreed that the said partnership deed along with papers of the immovable property, which was purchased by the appellants by their own money and recorded in the name of “M/s. Indian Hospitality”, cheques, blank signed papers would be kept with the respondent no.1 and after the repayment of loan along with interest, all the original papers along with cheques and blank signed papers will be returned to the appellants.

4. Mr. Arvind Vashisth, the learned Senior Advocate, submitted that out of the said loan amount of Rs.2,06,89,000/-, an amount of Rs.1,63,00,000/- has already been returned to the respondent no.1. However, on 16.02.2016, the appellants’ signatures were taken by the respondents on the “Partnership Admission Deed”. Later on, on 19.02.2016, that Deed dated 16.02.2016 was registered as “Partnership Deed-Retirement Cum Admission Deed”. According to the said Deed dated 19.02.2016, the appellants withdrew themselves from the said firm and new partners, i.e. respondents were admitted as partners in the firm. Mr. Arvind Vashisth, the learned Senior Advocate, contended that the respondent no.1 obtained blank signature papers from the appellants under pressure and by misrepresentation and used those papers in registering the said Deed dated 19.02.2016, and now, the respondents want to grab the appellants’ property, recorded in the name of the said firm i.e. “M/s. Indian Hospitality”. Mr. Arvind Vashisth, the learned Senior Advocate, submitted that the said Deed dated 19.02.2016 is a void document, therefore, the appellants have a right to invoke Clause 22, an Arbitration Clause, of the “Partnership Deed-Retirement Cum Admission Deed”, dated 19.02.2016. The appellants move