RATANLAL SHYAMLAL MITTAL Vs. UMESH RATANLAL MITTAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Application is filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration andConciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") for referring the dispute between the parties to arbitration as per Clause 24 of the Deed of Partnership dated 1st April, 1992 executed between the Petitioner and the Respondents at Bombay.

(2.) M /s.Ketki Hoteliers was carrying on business in partnership on the basis of Deeds of Partnership dated 31st October, 1986 and 2nd April, 1989 and, thereafter, the partnership was re-constituted by a Deed dated 1st April, 1992. The disputes are between father and son who are partners. The partnership is at will. Paragraph 24 of the Deed of Partnership dated 1st April, 1992 provides as under:-

(3.) IN the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of Respondent No.1, it is contended that the petition is filed belatedly and that there is collusion between the petitioner and Respondent No.2 in filing this petition. It is pointed out that several steps were taken by the Petitioner and Respondent No.1 to object the appointment of Court Receiver and also grant of interim reliefs. As the petitioner and Respondent No.2 want to avoid payment of any compensation as may be fixed by the Court Receiver on the basis of the Valuation Report submitted by the Receiver, this Petition is filed. It is pointed out that Respondent No.1 has filed Suit No. 100 of 1997 on 7th January, 1997 for dissolution of the partnership firm and, pending the suit for dissolution of the partnership firm, the Court Receiver should be appointed as Receiver of the property. On 24th January, 1997, when Respondent No.1 sought ad-interim relief, that application was vehemently objected by the petitioner and Respondent No.2 and at that time, neither the petitioner nor Respondent No.2 sought that the matter be referred to arbitrator. It is submitted that the learned Single Judge of this Court, by order dated 24th January, 1997, appointed the Court Receiver and granted ad-interim relief. Against that order, the Petitioner preferred Appeal No.116 of 1997 before the Division Bench of this Court. That Appeal was dismissed on 25th July, 1997. Against that order, the petitioner preferred Special Leave Application before the Supreme Court,which was dismissed on 29th August, 1997.