TAPAN KUMAR SEN Vs. TARUN AICH & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Court: This is a request under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act , 1996.

(2.) The petitioner, a practising advocate of this Court, was a partner of firm Mukherjee and Biswas till his retirement therefrom sometime in 2013. There is an arbitration agreement contained in the effective partnership deed which would govern the forum of an action in case of any dispute pertaining to the dues of an outgoing partner.

(3.) The petition makes out that the petitioner was constrained to receive payment of a sum of about Rs.10.35 lakh after the petitioner had retired from the firm, but the petitioner was not paid his share of the amount lying in fixed deposits in bank accounts of the firm. A copy of a letter dated April 19, 2016 has been appended to the petition. It is evident from such letter that the amount of about Rs.10.35 lakh received by the petitioner earlier was, according to the petitioner, in terms of clause 22(b) of the partnership deed and that the petitioner "came to learn... subsequently" that the petitioner was also entitled to 17.5% share in the fixed deposits created from the income of the firm.