RAM NIWAS GOYAL Vs. SUBHASH GOYAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners-defendants are aggrieved of the dismissal of the application filed under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in a suit seeking declaration to the effect that the plaintiff is entitled to ?th share of assets and liabilities of defendant No. 2 on the basis of Will dated 15.5.2011 executed by Smt. Shanti Devi widow of Hanuman Dass Goyal in his favour and the same was registered after her death vide vasika No. 112 dated 12.12.2011 as well as for rendition of account of defendant No. 2-firm for the period from 1.4.1996 till date on the basis of partnership deeds dated 1.4.1996 and 23.9.2000 and further, distribution of all assets among the plaintiff and other partners, and also for restraining defendant No.1 from supplying the petroleum products i.e. Petrol, diesel and mobile oil to defendant No. 2 as their partnership came to an end on account of death of Shanti Devi and alleged partnership deed dated 1.4.2007 was forged and fabricated much less, based upon fraud which has no effect upon the right of the plaintiff and defendant No. 3 namely Purshotam Dass Goyal.

(2.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf the petitioners submits that the suit aforementioned was filed on 16.6.2015 and as per condition No.16 of the partnership deed dated 1.4.1996, it has clearly been mentioned that in case of dispute between the partners or their "legal representatives", resolution of dispute shall be through arbitration, in essence the matter shall be referred to CH/SR Divisional Manager of DPCL. Even as per condition No.16 of the partnership deed dated 23.9.2000 a dispute, as mentioned above, is liable to be referred to arbitration. The trial court erroneously held that it is a complicated question of fact and while erroneously dismissing the application held that the subject matter of the suit cannot be adjudicated through arbitration proceedings.

(3.) He further submits that the respondents-plaintiffs are none else but legal representative of deceased Shanti Devi and the decision of the arbitration proceedings shall be binding upon all the parties. He further submits that the order under challenge lacks reasons. No complicated question of law or issues are involved, therefore the application was liable to be allowed as the dispute is arbitrable.