KADIR YAKOOB PATRAWALA & ORS Vs. MEHFUZA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

(2.) This arbitration petition challenges an award passed by a sole arbitrator in a reference. The reference was in respect of disputes between the parties under a partnership agreement. The reference was at the instance of the Respondents herein, who had claimed dissolution of the partnership and accounts.

(3.) The case of the Respondents (original claimants) before the arbitrator was that there was a partnership agreement between the parties executed on 23 May 2005 and that this partnership had to be dissolved and accounts rendered in respect of the same. One of the main disputes raised by the Petitioners (original respondents) concerned the genuineness of this document of partnership. It was the case of the Petitioners that the partnership deed purportedly claimed to have been executed between the parties on 26 May 2006 was not a genuine document. The Petitioners did not dispute the partnership business as such; their case was that the partnership was under a deed executed on 23 February 2005 and not the deed of 26 May 2006. What the Petitioners claimed was that one Yakoob Patrawala had originally started the subject business as a proprietorship; in course of time, in or about 23 February 2005, Yakoob and his family members, who include Petitioner Nos.1 to 4 and Respondent No.2, and one Yunus Patrawala, whose heirs are Respondent Nos.3 to 5 to the present petition, executed a partnership deed; and this partnership took over the proprietorship business of Yakoob, giving Yakoob a 25% share in the partnership. Yakoob died on 26 April 2006. The relevant clause of the partnership deed at that time provided for distribution of the share of the deceased amongst his legal heirs in accordance with the applicable law of succession. It was the Respondents' case that after the death of Yakoob, a new deed of reconstituted partnership was executed between the parties on 23 May 2006 and the widow of Yakoob, Respondent No.1 herein, was included as a partner with 20% share from out of 25% share of Yakoob. All other parties continued to be partners of the firm as before, save and except that their shares were augmented whilst distributing 5% balance share of Yakoob. The dispute between the parties really centered around the status of Respondent No.1 herein as 20% partner of the partnership firm and in particular, whether or not the deed of partnership of 23 May 2006, which gave her this 20% share, was in fact executed between the parties. The learned arbitrator, in his impugned award, held that the document was duly proved by the claimants through evidence adduced by Claimant No.3, who identified the signatories to the document. The arbitrator also noted that Respondent Nos.1 to 3 before him (who are the Petitioners before this court) had signed the partnership deed of 26 May 2006; that was their own case in their defence statement. They had claimed in their defence statement that they had in fact signed the deed of 26 May 2006 on an assurance that the claims of legal heirs of deceased Yakoob would be settled by Respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein. The learned arbitrator held that it was crystal clear that the parties had signed the partnership deed of 26 May 2006 with Respondent No.1 herein as a partner in place of her deceased husband, Yakoob Patrawala. The learned arbitrator, in the premises, held that the deed of partnership of 26 May 2006 was a legal and valid document executed by all partners named therein including the legal heirs of deceased claimant no.2 (later transposed as "Respondent No.5" and since deceased and now represented by his legal heirs, who are Respondent Nos.3 to 5 to the present petition). The learned arbitrator, in this connection, also considered the argument of the Petitioners herein that what was produced on record was only a copy and not the original partnership deed of 26 May 2006. The learned arbitrator accepted the Respondents' case that the original deed was with one Naseen Patrawala, solicitor daughter of deceased Yakoob; that there was record to show that correspondence was addressed in this behalf with Ms.Naseen and she had not given any evidence to rebut the case of the Respondents herein regarding her possession and custody of the partnership deed. The learned arbitrator, in the premises, accepted the copy as evidence of the original. These are clearly possible views, which are supported by evidence and do not suggest any perversity.