KIRITKUMAR FUTARMAL JAIN Vs. VALENCIA CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition under article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has challenged the judgment and order dated 26.8.2019 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Surat in Commercial Appeal No.1 of 2019 whereby the appeal preferred by the respondents against the order dated 31.10.2018 passed by the Arbitral Tribunal on the application made by the applicant under section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Arbitration Act') has been rejected and the application made by the respondents under section 37(2) thereof has been allowed.

(2.) Shortly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner is a partner in the respondent No.1 - Valencia Corporation, a partnership firm and has 50% share in the partnership firm. The petitioner came to be admitted into the partnership vide a retirement-cum-admission deed executed between the petitioner, the respondents No.2 to 7, and the erstwhile partners, on 18.2.2015 at Surat. Clause (11) of the deed provides thus:-

(3.) According to the petitioner, the respondents No.2 to 7 started taking advantage of their numerical majority and started conducting the affairs of the firm in a manner that was prejudicial to the interest of the petitioner as well as the first respondent firm. The petitioner also learnt that the respondents No.2 to 7 have accepted various payments in cash which were not accounted for in the accounts of the firm. He, therefore, demanded true and correct accounts of the firm which were not provided to him despite making various requests. The petitioner has alleged that the respondents No.2 to 7 have avoided providing fair accounts to the petitioner and that they have also pocketed various cash consideration. The petitioner has further alleged that to avoid giving actual and true accounts and to deprive the petitioner from the legitimate proceeds of the firm, the respondents No.2 to 7 have started executing documents unilaterally and the petitioner has been kept out of all the dealings of the firm.