LESLIE DAVID ISAAC Vs. BAHADUR BAPUJI SANJANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Appellant, original Respondent has filed this Appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, the Arbitration Act) and thereby challenge is made to the interim order dated 22 December 2011 passed by the Arbitral Tribunal pending the arbitration proceeding between the parties under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act. The Appellant was absent when the impugned order was passed by the Tribunal. The operative part of the order is as follows :

(2.) The Appellant is now aware of the order, which is appealable under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act. There exists arbitration clause in the Deed of Partnership dated 5.5.1976 entered into and signed by the parties. All disputes and question whatever which shall either during the partnership or afterwards arise between any partner or partners and the representatives of any partner touching this deed or constructed or application thereof or any acts or things therein contained or any account valuation or division of assets or debts or liabilities to be made thereunder and to any act deed or commissions of any partners or as to any other matter in any way relating to the partnership business or the affairs thereof or the rights duties liabilities of any person under this deed shall be referred to a single arbitrator in case the parties agree upon otherwise to two arbitrators one to be appointed by each party to the difference in accordance with and subject to the provisions of the Indian Arbitration Act of 1940 or any statutory modification thereof for the time being in force.

(3.) As there arose dispute between the partners of the firm, the Respondents by letter dated 5.5.2011 invoked the arbitration clause and unilaterally appointed a single/sole Arbitrator and called upon the Appellant to confirm the same. The meeting was fixed on 11.07.2011 by the Arbitrator. The Appellant resisted the appointment by his Advocate's letter dated 7.7.2011 and informed specifically that he would not participate in such arbitration proceedings. The Respondents Advocate received the said letter on 9.7.2011. As fixed, the Arbitrator on 11.07.2011 held the first meeting. The Appellant was absent. The Respondent did not disclose the receipt of the objection/letter of the Appellant dated 7.7.2011. The Arbitrator therefore noted that no reply from the Appellant. The Appellant thereafter by letter dated 2.08.2011 informed to the Arbitrator that the fact of their objection to the appointment was suppressed by the Respondent and further requested to desist and ceased from acting as an Arbitrator and also pointed out that such arbitration proceedings should not be binding on the Appellant.