G.K. HEMANTH Vs. LEGNO DOOR SYSTEMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is before this Court praying that an Arbitrator be appointed to resolve the dispute between the petitioner and the respondent. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the petition papers.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner and the respondents 2 and 3 were the partners in respect of the partnership firm viz. M/s. Legno Door Systems. The partnership was commenced from 30-1-2008 under a partnership deed. In respect of the partnership said to have been carried out by the parties, it is contended that there are certain disputes relating to the same inasmuch as the petitioner has not recovered the investments made towards the partnership. It is in that context, contended that the partnership deed dated 30-1-2008 provides for arbitration in the event of their being any dispute between the parties. The petitioner, therefore, contends that having invoked the said clause, a notice dated 16-11-2010 was issued. Since the respondents have disputed the claim put forth by the petitioner and have not accepted the appointment of the Arbitrator, the petitioner is before this Court seeking appointment of the Arbitrator to resolve the disputes between the parties.

(3.) The respondents, on being served with the notice in this petition, have appeared and filed their objection statement. The case as put forth by the petitioner is disputed. Though the partnership entered into on 30-1-2008 is admitted, it is contended that the partnership has thereafter been reconstituted by the deed dated 18-6-2010. As per the reconstitution, the petitioner had received a sum of Rs. 26,74,080/- and had retired from the partnership. Thereafter, the incoming partner and the earlier existing partner i.e. respondents 2 and 3 herein have continued the partnership is their contention. It is the case of the respondents that, in such situation, the petitioner having suppressed the reconstitution, cannot invoke the arbitration clause existing in the partnership deed, which had subsequently been reconstituted. It is therefore contended that the petition is liable to be dismissed.