LAWS(P&H)-2016-1-129

RAJIV MALHOTRA Vs. SANJAY MALHOTRA AND ORS.

Decided On January 22, 2016
RAJIV MALHOTRA Appellant
V/S
Sanjay Malhotra And Ors. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 31.05.2014 passed by Civil Judge [Junior Division], Jagadhri whereby application filed by Sanjay Malhotra, defendant No.1, [respondent no.1 herein] for referring the matter to arbitration under Section 8 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 [for short, "the Act"] was accepted.

(2.) Relevant facts for the purpose of decision of the present revision petition ; that plaintiff Rajiv Malhotra [petitioner herein] filed a suit for possession for half share in the suit property by way of partition of the property situated at Industrial Area, Yamuna Nagar including plot Nos. E-8 and E-9 and for dissolution of firm, named, M/s Maurya Timber, a partnership firm and for settlement of accounts. Relief of permanent injunction was also sought to restrain defendant No.1 from alienating, transferring, conveying or charging the nature and construction over the property in dispute. During the pendency of the said suit, defendant No.1, Sanjay Malhotra moved an application under Section 8(1) of the Act with the plea that as the dispute is relating to the settlement of accounts of the partnership firm and as per clause [14] of the Partnership Deed dated 1.4.2009, duly executed between the plaintiff and defendant No.1, the same be referred to the Arbitrator.

(3.) Said application was contested by the plaintiff, inter alia, taking the pleas that the application was not maintainable as defendants No.2 and 3 i.e., Haryana State Industrial & Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited and Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited respectively, are not party to the arbitration clause. More so, as per defendant No.1/applicant, Mrs. Raman Malhotra is the exclusive owner of the property in dispute, but she was not party to the arbitration clause. Moreover, the main suit was for partition of immovable property which is not covered by the arbitration clause and it was prayed that the application be dismissed.