RAJENDRAN Vs. RAMA CHIDAMBARAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE Civil Revision Petitions arise out of the order dated 11. 12. 2003 passed by the Principal Subordinate Judge, Mayiladuthurai in i. A. No. 15 of 2003 and I. A. No. 135 of 2003 in O. S. No. 205 of 2002, allowing the petitions filed under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, directing the Parties to settle the dispute by Arbitration and dismissing the suit in O. S. No. 205 of 2002. The Plaintiffs are the Revision Petitioners.

(2.) THE Plaintiffs are Father and Son. Case of the plaintiffs is that Second Plaintiff - Ravichandran and Defendants 2 and 3 were doing Partnership Business under the name and style of "g. S. Garments international" dealing in leather products. THE Partnership Agreement was entered into on 09. 09. 1990 and amended on 27. 12. 1990. Second Partnership agreement was entered into between the Second Plaintiff and the Defendants on 27. 06. 1996. After two years, the Partnership Business was closed and the partners have entered into a Compromise Agreement on 08. 12. 1998. Under the compromise, the Partnership Business was dissolved. THE Accounts were settled as per the terms of the Compromise, for outstanding liability, the Defendant is to pay 55% and the Second Plaintiff is to pay 45%.

(3.) UPON consideration of the contentions of both parties, referring to Clause 19 of the Partnership Agreement, the learned Principal subordinate Judge has allowed both the Applications and dismissed the Suit in o. S. No. 205 of 2002. Referring to Clause 19 of the Partnership agreement-Ex. P. 1 (Ex. R. 2), learned Subordinate Judge found that all the differences and disputes relating to the Partnership Business is to be settled only by referring the matter to the Arbitration and the Decision of the arbitrator shall be final and binding on all the Partners of the Firm. Learned subordinate Judge negatived the contention of the Plaintiffs that ex. P. 1 (Ex. R. 2) has been superseded by Ex. R. 3-Compromise Agreement. To exercise the discretion in referring the matter to the Arbitration, learned Subordinate judge has referred to the decision reported in 2000 (3) C. T. C. 74.