MACROTECH INDIA Vs. UMA ROY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this revisional application the plaintiff/ petitioners have raised a short but important question as to whether an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter called as the said Act) filed initially before the District Judge could be transferred by him to a Court of Additional District Judge for its disposal.

(2.) The facts giving rise to this civil revisional application are that the plaintiff-petitioners and the defendant-opposite party constituted a partnership firm registered under the Partnership Act. The said partnership agreement contained an arbitration clause as under :

(3.) It has been alleged by the plaintiff-petitioners that the defendant-opposite party by a letter dated 10th May, 2002 expressed her intention to retire permanently from the partnership in terms of the said partnership agreement but by her letter dated 22nd May, 2002 she by making a false statement challenged the running of the firm by the petitioners on various grounds. Further by writing false letter to the Bank where the main account of the firm is maintained, she managed the Bank to refuse to honour some cheques issued by the firm. Such action by her caused stop supply of goods to the firm preventing execution of its business commitments. Upon such allegations the plaintiff-petitioners made an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act before the Court of District Judge at Alipore on the plea that the disputes between the parties are liable to be settled in accordance with the arbitration agreement and as such they are prepared to nominate and appoint an Arbitrator in accordance with law. The said application was registered as Title Suit No. 92 of 2002 in Court of District Judge, South 24-Parganas at Alipore. The petitioner also made an application for an order of temporary injunction restraining the defendant-opposite party from making any communication in any manner concerning the partnership firm and from obstructing the honouring of cheques issued by the firm, from claiming to be a partner, from disclosing her as such partner before any authority rill disposal of the suit. The learned District Judge refused to pass any ad interim order of injunction as above ex parte. It appeared that the defendant-opposite party also filed a counter case which was registered as Title Suit No. 96 of 2002 before the self-same Court of District Judge at Alipore. In the said proceeding the defendant-opposite party also filed an application inter alia for an order of temporary injunction restraining the plaintiff-petitioners from carrying on with the business under the name and style of the partnership firm and from interfering with the defendant's carrying on with the said business, from operating the Bank accounts, from dealing with the customers of the firm and also from entering into the Office and factories of the firm during the pendency of the arbitral proceeding or till the disposal of the suit. The learned District Judge posted both the above applications for hearing without making any ad interim order ex parte. In these state of things the defendant-opposite party made an application for analogous trial of both the proceedings. The learned District Judge then by an impugned order transferred both the proceedings to the Court of 5th Additional District Judge, South 24-Parganas at Alipore for disposal along with the above applications for temporary injunction as also the petition for analogous trial of the same.