S K VIJAYAKUMAR Vs. S K RAVIKUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE three Miscellaneous First Appeals and the Civil Revision Petition are filed against the order dated 12-3-2001 passed by the District Court, Bangalore Rural District, in Arbitration case No. / 2001. The District Court dismissed the petition filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and the interlocutory applications. The applications are, I. A. I filed under Section 9 (ii) (d) of the Act read with Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C. P. C. for injunction, I. A. II under Order 26 Rules 9 and 11 CPC for appointment of Commissioner, I. A. III under Order 40 Rule 1 CPC for appointment of Receiver and I. A. IV under Section 151 CPC to dismiss the petition as not maintainable.

(2.) THE brief facts leading to these matters are the Appellant in the appeals and petitioners in the revision petition entered into a partnership venture under the name and style of M/s. Srinivas Enterprises along with respondents 1 to 6. The partnership firm was running Gopal Theatre situated in Doddaballapur, which is the Schedule property in the petition. The Appellant alleges that respondents 1 and 4 were whole time managing Partners of the firm but they did not fender accounts of the firm and the appellant was kept in dark regarding the affairs of the firm inspite of repeated requests, reminders and demands. It is further alleged that the meetings of the firm were also not convened. In those circumstances, the Appellant claims that the dissolved the partnership by issuing notice dated 5-2-2001 and the same was informed to respondents 1 to 6 and called upon them to render accounts and to distribute the assets of the firm. Xerox copies of the notice unserved covers are produced and the postal endorsement thereon is "not claimed. The dissolution of the firm was also notified in Udayavani newspaper dated 8. 2. 2001. The Appellant also invoked the arbitration clause in the partnership deed and proposed to appoint one Mr. Premchand Gupta, an advocate as the sole Arbitrator for settlement of the dispute. It is alleged that since respondents 1 to 6 made attempts to manipulate the accounts and to dispose of the properties of the partnership firm, the appellant filed the petition on 7. 2. 2001 in the District Court and the I. As Ito III, the details of which are narrated in paragraph 1 above (I. A. IV was filed by respondents 1 to 3 and 6 ). It is further alleged that despite knowledge of dissolution of the partnership firm, respondents 1 to 6 sold the schedule property (Gopal Theatre) to the 7th respondent herein. Therefore, relying upon the decision reported in AIR 1956 SC 593. It is contended that the alienation of the schedule property during the pendency of the petition is bad in law and Section 52 of transfer of Property is attracted.

(3.) RESPONDENTS I to 6 entered appearance and filed objections to I. As. I to III. They filed I. A. IV contending that the petition is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed in view of Section 69 (3) of the Act. Consequently, they contended that I. As. I to III are liable to be rejected. Reliance is placed upon the decision reported in AIR 1964 SC 1882.