SWEETY RASHID Vs. BILAL AHMAD GANAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present application has been filed for appointment of an arbitrator under Sec. 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1997 (for short the 'Act"). The petitioner and respondent.1 are wife and husband, and the respondent no.2 is the sister-in-law of the petitioner. The three had set up a partnership firm under name and style, 'M/s B. A. G. Enterprises' for which a Partnership Deed was executed on 12/4/2018. As per the Partnership Deed, the initial investment in the Firm was to be Rs.50000.00, of which the petitioner had contributed Rs.30000.00 and respondent nos.1 and 2, Rs.10000.00 each. As per the Deed, the profit and loss were to be shared amongst the partners in the ratio of 80:10:10. There was also a clause, being Clause-12 in the said Partnership Deed which provided that in case of disputes, difference and question which may arise amongst the parties during the continuance of the partnership between the parties, shall be referred to an Arbitrator to be appointed by the mutual consent of the parties and the arbitration shall be regulated and governed by the J&K Arbitration and Conciliation Act,1997. PETITIONER"S CASE:

(2.) According to the petitioner, after some time the relations between her and respondent no.1 turned sour which led to family disputes and also disrupting the partnership business resulting in the various litigations. In the process, the petitioner was allegedly thrown out of the house along with her two minor sons and the Triple Talaq was also pronounced upon the petitioner by respondent no.1 relating to which litigations are going on before different judicial fora. As a consequence, the respondents threw out thepetitioner from the business, though the petitioner had a major share and made the maximum investment in the partnership firm to the extent of 80% as mentioned above.

(3.) The petitioner contended that because of the aforesaid disputes, she was deprived of all the benefits of business of the said firm which are now being managed by respondent nos. 2 and 3 to the exclusion of the petitioner. Because the aforesaid disputes which have arisen out between the petitioner and the respondents, parties, the petitioner had also filed an application before the