MUSTT MUSSART JAHAN Vs. SWAPAN KUMAR PODDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Court.-THE instant application has been made by Mustt. Musarrat Jahan under section 20 of the Arbitration Act, inter alia, praying that the Arbitration Agreement contained in the Deed of Partnership dated March 14, 1990 be filed in this Hon'ble Court and for further and other consequential orders. THE respondent is Swapan Kumar Poddar. It is not disputed between the parties that there was a Partnership Deed as between the parties dated March 14, 1990. THE said Partnership Deed also contained an Arbitration Clause which, inter alia, provided that any dispute between the partners shall be referred to the Arbitration of a common find or acquaintance for her/his decision and the decision of the Arbitrator shall be binding in all matters. THE disputes which are sought to be referred to arbitration are specified in paragraph 27 of the Petition which are as follows :-

(2.) MR. Jayanta Mitter, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the firm was not registered and as such section 69 of the Partnership Act operates as a bar to the instant application. However, section 69(3) (a) clearly provides that the bar created under sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 69 shall not affect the enforcement of any right to sue for the dissolution of a firm/or for account of a dissolved firm or any right or power to realise a property of a dissolved firm. I am unable to accept the submissions made on behalf of the respondent that the application is barred by the provisions of section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act.

(3.) THE respondent in his Affidavit-in-Opposition, inter alia annexed a copy of the letter dated April 30, 1991 purported to have been written by the petitioner to the respondent which purports to be a Notice of Retirement by the petitioner by end of July, 1991. THE said letter purports to contain an allegation that the petitioner may resign after receiving the capital which the petitioner invested. THE respondent relies on another document alleged to be signed by the petitioner dated July 31, 1991 by which the petitioner is alleged to have made a statement that she has retired and relinquished all rights and interests in the firm M/s. Indian Beauty, in favour of the respondent Swapan Kumar Poddar who shall be entitled to continue with the said business of the firm in any manner as he may choose. By the said letter she is also alleged to have made a statement that the petitioner confirmed that she has received in time her capital which was invested and that she has no claim or liability about the profit and loss of the said firm M/s. Indian Beauty. Xerox copies of these documents are annexed to the Affidavit-in-Opposition and they are alleged to have been signed by the petitioner.