KANTI KUMAR SHARMA Vs. ARUN KUMAR GOEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) None for the petitioner despite the matter being passed over once and called a second time. This is a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act against the award dated 4.8.2011. The necessary facts which are required to be noticed for the disposal of the present petition are that the petitioner and the respondent are both partners of a firm duly constituted under the name and style of M/s. Kumar Digital Lab. The partnership firm was formed to carry on the business of developing of photograph from Digital Photo Development Machine. As per the partnership agreement, the business was to be conducted from C-3, Panchsheel Garden, Naveen Shahdara, Delhi. The parties signed the partnership deed dated 25.2.2005 as per which it was agreed between the parties that the profit and losses of the firm after the salary payable to the partners were to be divided in equal proportions i.e. 50% each. According to the respondent, who was the claimant before the learned Arbitrator, the parties had decided to carry on their business at another premises belonging to the respondent herein i.e. 1/11620, Panchsheel Garden, Naveen Shahdara, Delhi. According to the statement of claim, the respondent agreed to let out the premises at a monthly rent of Rs. 15,000/- to the partnership firm to carry on the business from the said site. With a view to carry on their trade and business the partnership firm purchased a Digital Photo Developing Machine for a sum of Rs. 48 lakhs out of which Rs. 25 lakhs was to be financed from the Bank and the remaining Rs. 23 lakhs was to be paid by the partners in equal shares.

(2.) The respondent raised various claims, however, the arbitrator has allowed only one claim with regard to the amounts paid by the respondent herein as instalments to the bank which had granted loan to the partnership firm for the purchase of the said machinery. The case set up by the respondent before the learned Arbitrator was that to secure the loan obtained from the bank, the respondent herein had mortgaged his property with the bank and thus he was left with no option but to pay the instalments in order to avoid the mortgaged property from being sold on account of non-payment of dues. The Arbitrator after taking into consideration that amounts were paid to the bank between 16.9.2005 and 9.4.2009 in the sum of Rs. 16,62,000/- has divided the liability between both the partners and saddled the petitioner herein with a liability of Rs. 7,56,000/- together with interest @8%.

(3.) I have perused the objections which have been raised by the petitioner. I have also carefully examined the award passed by the learned Arbitrator.