VIJAY KUMAR Vs. CHARAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application filed by the petitioner under Sec. 11(6) under Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short 'the Act') for appointment of an independent Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the dispute regarding shares of the partners of the firm, namely, M/s Upkar Stone Crusher.

(2.) It is stated that a partnership deed was executed on 11/4/2005, duly registered before the Sub-Registrar, Jammu and the shares of the partners were notified in the partnership deed. The petitioner further claims to have continued to be partner of the firm and the amount invested by the petitioner in the firm is shown as loan/credit in view of the latest return filed by the firm with the Income Tax Department. It is stated that the petitioner, for the last two years, has been pressing for rendition of the accounts of the firm, but on the contrary, the respondent No. 1 disclosed the petitioner, an affidavit attested on 12/7/2010, wherein it has been stated that the petitioner intends to retire from the firm. The petitioner has specifically stated that the affidavit has been forged by the respondent No. 1, as he has never signed the said affidavit and further has not retired from the firm in accordance with law. The petitioner further claims to have served a legal notice dtd. 18/7/2025 upon the respondents for reference of the dispute to an independent Arbitrator and even proposed the name of Sh. Suresh Sharma, Retired District and Sessions Judge for adjudication of the dispute, but the respondent No. 1, in terms of reply dtd. 11/8/2025, stated that because of execution of the affidavit, there is neither any existence of partnership deed nor arbitration agreement between the parties.

(3.) The respondents have filed the response stating therein that the petition is hopelessly barred by limitation, as after reconstitution of the partnership in the year 2018, the petitioner has not placed on record a single document to show receipt of any share of profits, participation in management, or even any contemporaneous correspondence asserting rights as a partner. It is further stated that the petitioner has retired from the partnership business on 9/7/2010 and all the accounts had been settled. The respondent No. 1 has relied upon the notice of retirement dtd. 9/7/2010 as also the affidavit duly sworn by the petitioner. It is further stated that the reliance placed by the petitioner upon the Income Tax returns of the year 2024-25 does not show the petitioner as partner and he is only shown as creditor from whom an unsecured loan has been obtained for an amount of Rs.4.00 Lacs.