GAURAV MITTAL Vs. GOVIND SARAN MITTAL AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Swapnil Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rahul Sahai and Sri Santosh Kumar Singh, learned counsels who have appeared for the opposite parties.

(2.) This application styled as being one under section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Act seeks referral of disputes inter parties to an arbitral tribunal to be comprised of a sole arbitrator.

(3.) The agreement for referral of disputes to arbitration is contained in a partnership deed said to have been executed on 15 April 2005. The partnership deed relates to the business of "Anjana Sari Centre" in which the present petitioner and the opposite parties Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are also shown as partners. It appears that by a notice dated 19 February 2010, the petitioner put the opposite parties to notice and sought dissolution of the firm as well as for rendering of accounts. This notice was followed by a subsequent notice dated 22 February 2010 in terms of which the petitioner sought the assent and concurrence of the opposite parties to the appointment of one Anil Kulshreshtha, Advocate to act as the sole arbitrator. The respondents by their reply dated 19 March 2010 did not accede to this request and raised various objections to the demand of the petitioner seeking rendering of accounts as well as dissolution of the firm. It is in the above backdrop that the instant application came to be preferred before this Court. On this petition notices were issued to the opposite parties who are represented by counsel and have also filed their counter as well as supplementary counter affidavits.