CHITHRA KUMAR Vs. AARTHI AMARENDRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenging the Award of the Learned Arbitrator the present Original Petition has been filed. For the sake of convenience the parties are referred as per their own rankings in the claim petition.

(2.) The brief facts leading to file this petition is as follows:

(3.) It is the case of the respondent that it was the claimant who induced her to start the Salon and Spa. The respondent wanted to open it at Anna Nagar where she is residing. However, the claimant insisted her to start the same at Neelangarai. Whenever the respondent sought for clarification the claimant insisted that she knew better and that she was the senior and it was the respondent who agreed the decisions of the claimant to maintain the relationship. though the firm was registered on 25.04.2013 the lease agreement was signed on 02.06.2013 and the business commenced only on 28.12.2013. It is denied that the firm was started as a unit of the claimant's proprietary concern. The firm did not have regular customers and respondent was regular to attend the firm from 10.00 a.m. to 8.00 p.m. everyday and the claimant had rarely visited the firm. The respondent never objected the claimant from coming to the firm, but every time there was confusion because of the unprofessionalism of the claimant and those customers who were in nearby area stopped coming to the firm. It is his further contention that the respondent had not terminated the services of any staff nor did the claimant train many prospective employees afresh. The entire sum of Rs.40 lakhs was not invested by the claimant out of her own funds. The unilateral removal of the name of Salon Aarthi would not affect the firm as the proprietary concern is not in any manner connected to the firm. The partnership is one at will and the firm has been dissolved by the voluntary act of the claimant. The allegation that the documents were not furnished to the claimant cannot be accepted, since most of the documents filed by the claimant had been received from the respondent. The claimant has no right to claim any amount, since at the time of dissolution, the firm was running at a loss.