RAMKRISHNA AHUJA Vs. TEJPRAKASH MAHESHWARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two appeals are directed against the judgment and decree in OS No. 2092 of 1997. The deceased-first appellant in CMA No. 961 of 2006 filed OS No. 2092 of 1997 in the Court of IX-Additional Senior Civil Judge, (FTC)City Civil Court, Hyderabad, against the first respondent in the appeals for the relief of dissolution of a partnership firm by name m/s. Nath Peters Pharmaceuticals Company; for rendition of accounts and a final decree after the settlement of accounts determining the shares of profits etc. During the pendency of the suit, he died and appellants 2 to 6 in cma No. 961 of 2006 and sole appellant in cma No. 995 of 2006 were brought on record as his legal representatives. Sri tejprakash Maheswari, who is the first respondent (for short "the respondent") in both the appeals, is the sole defendant in the suit.

(2.) THE necessary facts that gave rise to the constitution of the firm and the nature of the disputes were pleaded. The respondent filed a written statement. He has also taken a plea that there exists a clause in the partnership deed, namely; clause (7), which provides for resolution of the disputes through arbitration and that in that view of the matter, the suit is not maintainable. The trial Court framed necessary issues and conducted a detailed trial. Through the judgment and decree under appeal, the trial court returned the plaint under Order VII rule 10, observing that it has no jurisdiction to decide the matter and left it open to the appellants to approach the concerned forum for arbitration. The said decree is challenged in these appeals.

(3.) SRI D. Seshadri Naidu and Sri R. Kesava Rao, learned Counsel for the appellants in both the appeals, submit that apart from raising a plea in the written statement, the respondent filed LA No. 556 of 1998, which was renumbered as LA no. 581 of 2004, for return of the plaint under Section 8 of the Arbitration and conciliation Act, 1996 (for short "the Act")by pleading that there exists an arbitration clause, and through a detailed order, the trial Court dismissed the same on 16. 2. 2005. The learned Counsel submit that CRP no. 1398 of 2005 filed against the same was dismissed by this Court. Learned Counsel submit that the purport of clause (7) is very limited, in the sense that the arbitration is provided only as regards the interpretation of the contents of the partnership deed-Ex. A4 and by no stretch of imagination, it covers the disputes in relation to the functioning of the partnership firm. They submit that the trial Court ought to have decided the matter on merits since there is voluminous oral and documentary evidence on record.