MANJU Vs. DEEPAK KAUSHIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard learned counsels, and proceed to dispose of this Application under Sec. 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

(2.) The case of the applicant is that she entered into a partnership with the respondent vide Partnership Deed dtd. 11/12/2015. Under the said Partnership Deed, both the parties had 50% shares. Clause 17 of the Agreement contained an Arbitration Agreement between the parties provides that any dispute or difference which may arise between the partner or their legal representatives with regard to the meaning or effect of the said deed or any part thereof or respecting the account, profits and losses of the business or any other matter relating to the firm shall be referred to the Arbitrator-one to be nominated by each partner and in case of a dispute or difference, the same was to be referred to the decision of the Umpire.

(3.) It appears that disputes arose between the parties, and the applicant invoked the Arbitration Agreement on 17/10/2018. Despite the said invocation, the parties did not appoint the Arbitrators, and consequently, the applicant preferred Arbitration Petition No. 33 of 2019 titled "Manju vs. Deepak Kaushik". The same was disposed of by the then Chief Justice on 5/11/2020, while observing that under Clause 17 of the Partnership Deed dtd. 11/12/2015, each party had to appoint one Arbitrator, which had not been done. The applicant was given liberty to act in terms of the Partnership Deed.