VINOD KANNAN Vs. PRADEEP KRISHNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition the petitioner has prayed for appointment of an arbitrator in terms of the partnership deed dated 06.08.2003 -Annexure B. According to the petitioner he and the respondent entered into a partnership deed on 06.08.2003 as per Annexure B. Clause 22 of this partnership deed specifies that all disputes in connection with the partnership deed shall be referred to an arbitration by two arbitrators to be appointed by the partners and in case of their disagreement to an umpire appointed by the said arbitrators.

(2.) On 18.05.2011 the petitioner got issued a lawyer's notice as per Annexure K for settlement of accounts Annexure L is the acknowledgment for having served the lawyer's notice at Annexure K. The respondent has not replied to this notice. Thereafter the petitioner issued another notice as per annexure M dated 18.06.2011 suggesting the name of an arbitrator and requesting the respondent to suggest the name of arbitrator of his choice. Annexure N is the postal acknowledgment for having served the notice at Annexure M. Even to this notice there is no reply.

(3.) Further it is seen from the record that the petitioner while invoking the arbitration clause under the partnership deed also filed a civil suit against the respondent and another in O.S. No. 32/2013 on the file of Fast Track Court, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore. In this O.S. No. 32/2013 the respondent herein entered appearance and filed objections inter alia contending that the partnership deed relied on by the petitioner is not registered and as such the suit is not maintainable under section 69 of the Partnership Act Accepting the contention of the respondent herein the trial Court rejected O.S. No. 32/2013 as not maintainable. Therefore the petitioner is before this Court under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking appointment of an arbitrator.