TEJINDER PAL GROVER Vs. MURARI LAL GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners and Murari Lal Gupta, respondent had constituted a partnership firm under the name and style of M/s. Jai Mata Sanitary and Hardware Store, Samrala Road, Ludhiana by executing partnership deed dated 8.7.1995. The business became operative with effect from 1.7.1995. A fresh partnership deed was executed on 1.4.1997 which contained arbitration clause. Again a partnership deed was executed on 1.4.2000. The respondent filed a civil suit on 21.8.2003 against the petitioners for dissolution of partnership firm and for rendition of accounts. In the said civil suit, the petitioners filed an application under Section 8 of the Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act (in short the Act of 1996) in which it was pleaded that on 31.3.2002, differences had arisen between the partners and the respondent had retired from the partnership with effect from 31.3.2002 and the accounts were settled. It was further pleaded that in view of arbitration clause No. 11 in the partnership deed, the matter was referable to the Arbitrator. The said application was opposed by the respondent. The learned trial Court dismissed the said application vide impugned order dated 5.4.2002. Hence, the present petition. 3. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioners was that since there was arbitration clause between the parties, which was part of partnership deed dated 1.4.1997, therefore, the matter was referable to the Arbitrator. Reliance was placed on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported as V.H. Patel and Company and others v. Hirubhai Himabhai Patel and others, 2000(2) RCR(Civil) 735 : (2000)4 Supreme Court Cases 368 and Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. v. Pinkcity Midway Petroleums, 2003(3) RCR(Civil) 686 : (2003)6 Supreme Court Cases 503. 4. On the other hand, the submission of learned counsel for the respondent was that since as per version of the petitioners themselves, the partnership has ceased to exist with effect from 31.3.2002, the arbitration clause no longer survived and,therefore, there is no dispute between the partners which can be referred to the Arbitrator. It was further submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned order dated 5.4.2006 passed by the learned trial Court. Submissions have been considered. It would be worth-while to reproduce the arbitration clause No. 11 which was a part of partnership deed dated 1.4.1997. It reads as under :-