NEELAM KUMARI Vs. DARSHAN SINGH KHARBANDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed this petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act for reference of certain disputes which are stated to have arisen between the parties under a partnership deed dated 1st February, 1990. THE facts in short are that the defendant is stated to have approached the petitioner with a proposal to carry on business in partnership, in case, the petitioner was able to invest Rs.70,000.00 in the business. It is the case of the petitioner that she invested a sum of Rs.70,000.00 and accordingly, a partnership deed dated 1st February, 1990 was entered into between the parties. It is stated that during the continuance of the partnership the defendant did not render true accounts to the petitioner and the petitioner, accordingly, vide a telegraphic notice dated 24th April, 1990 dissolved the partnership firm. In the partnership deed, there was an arbitration agreement whereby any dispute between the parties was required to be referred to arbitration in accordance with Indian Arbitration Act. THE contention of the petitioner is that as the disputes have now arisen between the parties in respect of the dissolution of the firm and also the rendition of accounts, such disputes are liable to be referred for adjudication to an arbitrator in terms of the arbitration agreement existing between the parties and as contained in the partnership deed.

(2.) THE respondent has filed his reply to the petition contending that the petitioner and her husband are guilty of forgery as they had alleged to have interpolated the partnership deed by altering the basic terms of the deed. It is also the case of the respondent that the partnership deed was never acted upon and no partnership business could commence and the amount of Rs.70,000.00 had not been paid as agreed by the parties. It is stated that the petitioner was required to pay a sum of Rs.75,000.00 as goodwill of the firm and she had also agreed to take over the liabilities and had further agreed to deposit a sum of Rs.5,000.00 towards her share capital of the firm. It is stated that the petitioner gave this sum of Rs.75,000.00 by means of three cheques for a sum of Rs.20,000.00 dated 23rd February, 1990; Rs.50,000.00 dated 25th February, 1990 and Rs.5,000.00 dated 28.2.1990/1.3.1990. THE cheque for Rs.50,000.00 was dishonoured by the bankers and returned to the respondent. It is stated that with a view to create evidence in her favour, the petitioner subsequently deposited a sum of Rs.45,000.00 in the account of the respondent, vide two cheques on different dates. It is, therefore, the case of the respondent that as even the amount which had been agreed to be paid was not paid, no partnership had come into existence. This amount fraudulently deposited in the amount of the respondent by the petitioner, had been returned to the petitioner. It is, therefore, stated that as no partnership had come into existence, there was no question of reference of any disputes to the arbitrator.

(3.) IN the circumstances of the case, I leave the parties to bear their own costs.