(1.) In view of the earlier orders, the Appeals are admitted. Filing of paper-books is dispensed with. Notice of Appeals is waived. By consent, heard forthwith.
(2.) By this appeal (Appeal No. 32 of 2017), the appellant challenges the order of the learned Single Judge dismissing Arbitration Petition No. 456 of 2015.
(3.) By the impugned order dated 30th July, 2015, two arbitration petitions, one bearing no. 646 of 2015 and the appellant's arbitration petition have been decided together. Insofar as the appellant's Arbitration Petition No. 456 of 2015 is concerned, the challenge is that in the year 1961, Mr.Abdul Rahim Shaikh, the husband of the appellant before us carried on business of a canteen as a sole proprietor. That was carried on since her husband was in exclusive use, occupation and possession of the property, namely, City Survey No. 290, including the basement. He expired on 29th May, 1979 leaving behind the appellant-petitioner and five sons. The entire property is stated to be the subject matter of a partnership, but owned by the deceased Abdul Rahim Shaikh. The estate on his death was inherited by the appellant-petitioner and the five sons. They being the only heirs and legal representatives, it is stated that the petitioner is an illiterate lady. On 27th June, 1977, a partnership firm was constituted and duly registered to operate and conduct a business of hotel under the name and style as "Hotel Sagar". Till 5th February, 2009, the respondents to this appeal and the present appellant-petitioner carried on this business in partnership. Eight partnership agreements entered into are all referred to in para 3 of the arbitration petition and further, two retirement deeds as well. In the memo of the arbitration petition itself, it is stated that these documents are admitted and therefore, marked as exhibits by the sole Arbitrator. The business was conducted in partnership, but none of the partnership deeds mention about the properties of the firm.