AARVEE GAS SERVICE Vs. V A R ALAGIRISAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AN LPG distributorship was allotted to one Raju alias Rangasamy Naidu, who was carrying on the said business under the name and style of M/s Sree Aarvee Gas Service. During his lifetime, the said Raju alias Rangasamy Naidu inducted his wife Gangammal and two sons namely, A.R.Balakrishnan and A.R.Srinivasan as partners. The said Raju alias Rangasamy Naidu died on 8.3.89. After his demise, the petitioner by name A.R.Srinivasan, the son of the said Raju alias Rangasamy Naidu, and the brother of the petitioner by name A.R.Balakrishnan along with their mother Gangammal were carrying on the said business as partners. The reconstituted firm was approved by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited. Smt.Gangammal died intestate on 18.4.2001 and thereafter the business was carried on by the petitioner and his brother A.R.Balakrishnan. It appears that after the demise of Gangammal, the younger brothers of the petitioner namely, A.R.Alagirisamy, A.R.Ramachandran and R.Jaganathan claimed to be the partners of the firm. A dispute arose between them. Due to the said dispute, the Indian Oil Corporation Limited informed the firm on 25.6.2002 that the dealership would be suspended unless the family dispute was resolved. A reply was sent to the Indian Oil Corporation Limited explaining that the problem was created only by the younger brothers, who have no right to become the partners of the firm. Thereafter, the Indian Oil Corporation Limited appears to have advised the petitioner to seek relief in terms of the arbitration clause provided in the partnership deed. Clause 15 of the partnership deed provided a provision for arbitration, which is as follows:- "All the disputes and question in connection with the partnership arising between the partners or between any one of them and the legal representatives of the other or between their respective legal representatives and whether during or after the partnership shall be settled as per the provisions of the Indian Arbitration Act."

(2.) IN terms of the aforesaid clause, the petitioner and other legal heirs approached one Mr.N.V.Ramasamy for settlement of disputes and entered into a memorandum of understanding on 22.2.2001. An attempt was made to resolve the dispute amicably through him. Clause 8 of the terms and conditions of the memorandum of understanding reads as under: -

(3.) FOR all the above reasons, I am of the view that the impugned order does not call for interference. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. The petitioner is at liberty to raise the issue as to the jurisdiction as well the existence of the memorandum of understanding before the Arbitrator and in the event such issues are raised, the Arbitrator shall consider the same before any award is passed. No costs. Consequently, W.P.M.P.No.8588 of 2005 and W.V.M.P.No.972 of 2005 are also dismissed.