MUKESH KUMAR AGRAWAL Vs. RAJ KUMAR AGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Sec.11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (henceforth 'the Act').

(2.) Honourable the Chief Justice of Madhya pradesh High Court had made a scheme for appointment of arbitrators, in exercise of the powers conferred upon him by sub-sec.(10) of Sec.11 of the Act. By virtue of sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 of the aforesaid scheme, the request under sub-sec.(4) or sub-sec.(5) or sub-sec.(6) of Sec.11 of the Act can be heard by the Chief Justice himself or a Judge designated by him by a general or special order. In view of a general order passed by Honourable the Chief Justice designating me for the purpose in this case, this request can be heard by me.

(3.) A preliminary objection has been raised on behalf of the non-applicants regarding the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Chief Justice or his designate to hear the application under Sec.11 of the Act. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the non-applicants that this request under Sec.11 of the Act cannot be heard as a dispute between the partners relates to a matter which is with regard to less than Rs. 25 Lacs. The argument of the learned counsel for the non-applicants is that the applicant Mukesh Kumar Agrawal, who is making a request, has 1/4th share in the entire assets of the dissolved partnership firm and, therefore, the dispute is in respect of only 1/4th share between the applicant and the non applicants no. 1, 2 and 3. Consequently, the District Judge alone can decide the request under Sec.11 of the Act.