REKHA AGARWAL Vs. ANIL AGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Appellants/Petitioners challenge an order passed by a Sole Arbitrator under Section -16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ( ''Act '') upholding the Respondents' objection to the jurisdiction of the Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes referred to arbitration. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to in this order with reference to their respective designations in Arbitration Petition No.257 of 2013.

(2.) THE Petitioner and Respondents were partners in a firm by the name of M/s Laxmi Centre. The firm was constituted under a Deed of Partnership dated 25 June 1976, a further Deed of Partnership dated 7 September 1985 and a Supplementary Deed of Partnership dated 4 March 1997. The partnership was at will. There was an arbitration clause in the Deed. Disputes and differences arose between the parties. A dissolution notice was served by the Petitioner on the Respondents. Subsequently, the Petitioner invoked the arbitration agreement between the parties and appointed her nominee arbitrator. Respondent No.1 did not accept the nomination and instead filed an application under Section 11 for appointment of arbitrator. By its order dated 29 July 2010, this court appointed Mr. Snehal Shah, Advocate, as the Sole Arbitrator. Statement of Claim was filed by Respondent No.1 before the Arbitrator. The Petitioner filed her Statement of Defence and Counter -claim. A few hearings were held and directions were issued by the Arbitrator. Thereafter, Respondent No.1 filed an application under Section -16 of the Act contesting the jurisdiction of the Arbitrator to entertain the Counter -claim. The alternative prayers claimed in that application were (a) a declaration that the Counterclaim was not arbitrable in view of the allegations of fraud and forgery therein and a direction to continue with the arbitration proceedings based on the Statements of Claim and Defence alone, and (b) in the alternative, a direction to the Respondent (i.e. Petitioner herein) to give particulars of fraud and forgery and a permission to the Claimant (i.e. Respondent No.1 herein) to amend his pleadings after such particulars were furnished.

(3.) AT the hearing of the application before the learned Arbitrator, Counsel for Respondent No.1 submitted that the entire dispute between the parties (i.e. the dispute raised in the Statement of Claim as well as Counterclaim) was not arbitrable having regard to the various judgments of the Supreme Court and our Court.