NEMAI MAITY Vs. NETAI MAITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against an order dated April 20, 2013 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, 4th Court, Howrah. The impugned order was passed in accordance with the provisions of Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, restraining the appellant/opposite party, his men and agents and employees from encumbering and/or transferring and/or disposing of the schedule mentioned property of the firm, running under the name and style of 'M/s. Supplier Syndicate', pending dispute between the parties in this regard.

(2.) The facts of this case in a nutshell are as under:

(3.) On or about March 22, 2010, the respondent/plaintiff served a notice through his learned Advocate to the appellant/opposite party alleging that the respondent/plaintiff was entitled to 25 per cent share in the profit and losses of the above partnership firm aggregating a sum of Rs.60,00,000/- for 13 years. The appellant/opposite party replied to the above notice by a communication dated April 13, 2010 refuting the allegations made therein. By a further communication dated June 21, 2010, the respondent/plaintiff sought to appoint one Mridul Roy, a retired Judge, for acting as an arbitrator invoking the provisions of Clause 21 contained in the deed of partnership dated December 31, 1997. The appellant/opposite party had acknowledged the notice but he did not give reply to the same.