SMT. P. SUSHEELAMMA Vs. SMT. KAMALAMMA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this application under section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ('the Act of 1996'), the petitioner has made the request for appointment of Arbitrator to adjudicate upon and decide all her disputes with the respondents, arising out of, and relating to, the Partnership Deed dated 01.04.2006.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that she entered into partnership agreement with the respondents on 22.11.1971 for running a theatre. On 01.04.2006, they entered into another partnership deed defining the rights of the partners, by cancelling the earlier partnership deed. The petitioner has alleged that she was displaced from the management of the theatre and there had been illegal actions on the part of the respondents, wherefor she served a notice on 28.02.2011 invoking the arbitration clause and sought appointment of Arbitrator to settle the disputes. However, the respondents did not reply to the said notice.

(3.) It is also noticed that the petitioner made an application under Section 9 of the Act of 1996 before the Principal District and Sessions Judge at Chitradurga in A.O.S.No.4/2011, which came to be rejected primarily on the ground that the son of respondent No.2 was not a party to the partnership deed containing the arbitration clause. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed MFA No.6306/2011, which was disposed on 23.09.2013, directing the parties to work out their remedies before the Civil Court or Arbitrator.