ARUN KUMAR BHUNIA Vs. BADAL MIDYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this application under Section 11 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, as amended by Act 3 of 2015 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1996"), the petitioner has prayed for appointed of an Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties relating to the partnership agreement dated May 06, 2013.

(2.) Shortly stated the facts leading up to the filing of this application are that on May 06, 2013 the petitioner and the respondent entered into a partnership deed (hereinafter referred to as "the partnership deed") for the purpose of carrying on the partnership business of real estate, under the name and style of "Saraswati Real Estate-II" (hereinafter referred to as the partnership firm). The terms and conditions under which the petitioner and the respondent agreed to carry on the said partnership business are stipulated in the partnership deed. Clause 19 of the partnership deed contemplates that all disputes, differences and/or claims arising out of or touching upon any issue of any nature whatsoever between the partners whether, during the tenure of the partnership or thereafter shall be settled through arbitration by a sole arbitrator shall be referred to the to be unanimously nominated by the partners.

(3.) According to the petitioner, the partnership firm purchased the property being a plot of land situated in the District of Paschim Medinipur, being J.L. No. 187, Mouza: Polan Kamarara, R.S. Khatian No.31, L.R. Khatian No.152, R.S. Plot No.612 (Part) L.R. Plot No.1507, measuring 16.93 decimal of land together with four storied incomplete building (hereinafter referred to as the 'said building'). The petitioner has alleged that although he performed all his obligations under the partnership deed but by a letter dated December 19, 2017 addressed to a former Judge of this Court alleged that various disputes have arisen between the parties herein and appointed the said former Judge of this Court as the sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties to the partnership deed. A copy of the said letter was also forwarded to the petitioner. Thereafter, the said arbitrator entered upon the reference in the arbitration and the respondent herein, as the claimant filed his statement of claim before the arbitrator. The petitioner also filed his counter statement. Subsequently, the petitioner filed an application before the arbitrator alleging that the mode of conduct of the arbitral proceeding has given rise to an apprehension to his mind that he will not get fair justice from the arbitrator. On the basis of such allegations, the petitioner requested the arbitrator to stop the arbitral proceeding. The present respondent, as the claimant in the arbitral proceeding contested in the said application. By an order dated February 17, 2018 the arbitrator rejected the said application filed by the present petitioner with costs assessed at Rs.8000/- to be paid to the claimant by the next date. Thereafter, on March 13, 2018 the petitioner issued a letter to the respondent alleging that the appointment of the said arbitrator was not as per the procedure laid down in Clause 19 of the partnership deed and as such the said arbitration proceeding initiated at the instance of the respondent is not valid. The petitioner asserted the said letter dated March 13, 2018 to be a notice under Section 11 of the Act of 1996 and called upon the respondent to agree to the appointment of the arbitrator named by him. Since the respondent did not reply to the said letter dated March 13, 2018, the petitioner has filed this application claiming the relief already as mentioned above.