1. Admit. Learned counsel for the respondents waives service. By consent of parties, petition is heard finally.

2. By this arbitration petition filed under section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short “Arbitration Act”), the petitioner has impugned the order dated 11th October, 2017 passed by the learned sole arbitrator on the application filed by the respondents under section 16 of the Arbitration Act holding that the arbitral tribunal does not have jurisdiction to decide dissolution of partnership firm under section 44(g) of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 (for short the “Partnership Act”) on just and equitable grounds and further holding that insofar as the decision on the disputes between the parties and dissolution of the partnership firm on the ground that the partnership is “at will” are concerned, the same is within the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal. During the course of the argument, learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the petitioner is impugning only part of the order to the extent that the arbitral tribunal does not have jurisdiction to dissolve the partnership firm under section 44(g) of the Partnership Act.

3. A short question that arises for the consideration of this Court in this petition is whether the power to dissolve a partnership firm under section 44(g) of the Partnership Act vests only in the Court and cannot be exercised by the arbitral tribunal or not. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this petition are as under.

4. The petitioner herein is the original claimant in the arbitral proceedings, whereas the respondents herein are the original respondents i.e. Mr. Naishad M. Raiji, Vasant N. Raiji, Gangadhara A. Menon and Vijay V. Nerurkar who together constituted the partnership firm in the name and style of M/s. N.M. Raiji & Co. under the Partnership Deed dated 21st February, 1968. There was a change in the constitution of the said firm several times. The last Deed of Partnership was executed on 24th April, 2000 wherein, the petitioner and the respondents were shown as the partners of the said firm under the terms and conditions more particularly set out in the said Deed of Partnership. Clause 1(b) of the said Deed of Partnership provided that the partnership shall be “at will” and dissolved only with unanimous consent of all the partners. No partners shall have a right to dissolve the partnership.

5. Clause 2 of the Deed of Partnership provided that any partner shall be at liberty to retire from the partnership on giving at least six calender month's notice in writing to the other partner and on the expiry of such period, the partnership shall continue with the remaining partners on the terms and conditions decided mutually by the remaining partners. Clause 9(a) of the said Deed of Partnership provided that the goodwill of the partnership shall belong exclusively to the firm and no partner shall have right, title or interest whatsoever either on death, retirement or expulsion from the firm or on the dissolution of the firm or on the termination of the agreement for any cause or reason.

6. Clause 9 (b) provided that on the retirement, death or expulsion of a partner, or on dissolution of the firm, no payment is made to the outgoing partner, his widow or estate for goodwill, as it belongs to the firm and not to any individual partner. Clause 12 (a) of the Deed of Partnership provided that any partner may retire on giving such notice as is referred to in clause 2 of the said Deed of Partnership. Clause 12 (b) of the Deed of Partnership provided that every partner shall retire from the firm at the end of the firm's financial year in which he attains the age of 65. Clause 13 of the said Deed of Partnership provided that the death or retirement of a partner shall not dissolve the partnership as to the other partner.

7. Clause 18 of the said Deed of Partnership recorded an arbitration agreement which reads as under:-

“All dispute and questions in c