PRIYA RISHI BHUTA Vs. VARDHAMAN ENGINEERS AND BUILDERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are four applications filed under Sec. 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, "the Act") whereby the applicants, who claim to be the daughters of deceased Amritlal Jain, who was a Partner in the partnership firm - respondent no.1 in each of these applications, are before the Court praying that the disputes and differences between the applicants and the respondents as arising under these partnership deeds be referred to arbitration.

(2.) The applicants are invoking the arbitration agreement as contained in each of the partnership deed. The facts in relation to all these applications are common, except that respondent no.1-partnership firm in each of these applications is different. Also the arbitration clause as contained in each of the partnership deed(s) is similar. The arbitration agreement as contained in clause 19 reads thus:-

(3.) For convenience, the facts pertaining to Arbitration Application No. 149 of 2021 are being referred. Respondent no.1 is the partnership firm of which the applicants claim to have interest as per clause 17 of the Partnership Deed dtd. 12/3/2012. Respondent nos.2 and 3 are existing partners. Respondent no.4 has been inducted as a partner after the death of applicants' father Mr. Amritlal Jain. Respondent no.5 is the original partner, who is a signatory to the deed of partnership. Respondent nos. 6 to 10 were inducted as partners within the percentage of respondent no.5's share in the partnership firm and as permitted under the partnership deed. In other words, respondent nos.4, 6, 7 and 10 are not the partners in the original partnership deed, and have been inducted subsequently by the original partners within the share of such original partners and without disturbing such fixed share.