Madras High Court
P.Sudha vs A.Anitha … on 10 September, 2024
Arb.O.P.(Comm.Div.) No. 275 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 10.09.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU
Arb.O.P.(Comm.Div.) No. 275 of 2024
1.P.Sudha
2.R.Laxmichitra
3.Alagu Ranganayagi … Petitioners
-vs-
A.Anitha … Respondent
PRAYER: Arbitration Original Petition filed under Section 11(6) of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking for following reliefs:-
(a) To appoint the arbitrator in terms of Section 11 of
the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to resolve the
disputes that have arisen between the petitioner and the
respondents as per clause 19 of the partnership Agreement
dated 20.03.2019;
(b)The respondents be directed to pay the cost of the petition
and
(c) Pass such other orders as this Court may deem fir and
proper in the circumstances of the case.
For Petitioners : Mr.B.Manoharan
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No:1/7
Arb.O.P.(Comm.Div.) No. 275 of 2024
For Respondent : Mr.Abdul Hameed
Senior Counsel
for Mr.Lamech Indian
ORDER
This Arbitration Original Petition has been filed under Section 11(6) of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter called as 'the Act') to appoint
an Arbitrator in respect of the disputes that have arisen between the petitioners
and the respondent as per clause 19 of the partnership Agreement dated
20.03.2019
2. Heard Mr.B.Manoharan, learned counsel for the petitioners and
Mr.Abdul Hameed, learned Senior Counsel for Mr.Lamech Indian, learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent.
3. A preliminary objection had been raised by the learned Senior Counsel
appearing on behalf of the respondent by contending that the original partnership
deed dated 20.03.2019 had been replaced by a fresh partnership deed dated
22.05.2020 by which a partnership had been reconstituted and two persons were
inducted and the shares have also been modified. Therefore, he would submit
that without impleading the newly impleaded partners, the petition is not
maintainable. Therefore, he would submit that the petition ought to be dismissed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No:2/7
Arb.O.P.(Comm.Div.) No. 275 of 2024
4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the petitioners would submit
that the newly inducted partners had resigned from the partnership firm and in
support of his claim he had also filed the Income Tax Returns which had been
purportedly verified by the respondent indicating that newly inducted partners
have resigned.
5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent would
again contest the said claim of the learned counsel for the petitioners by
contending that no such Returns were filed by the respondent and it has been
stage managed by the petitioners.
6. I have perused the petition and also the materials available on record
and considered the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on either
side.
7. It is not disputed that a Partnership Agreement had been entered into on
20.03.2019 between the petitioners and the respondent. Even though, it has not
been brought on record before this Court by the petitioners that there is
reconstitution, even admitting that there was a reconstitution of the partnership
firm, the original Partnership continued to be in existence. What was done on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No:3/7
Arb.O.P.(Comm.Div.) No. 275 of 2024
22.05.2020 was a reconstitution of a partnership deed.
8. Eventhough there is a dispute as regards to the continuation of the newly
inducted partners based upon reconstitution, this Court is of the opinion that this
Court, at this stage cannot look into the disputes and decide the issue in view of
the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in In-Re interplay between the
agreement under Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
and the Stamp Act reported in 2024 (6) SCC 1. All these issues can
be raised before the Arbitrator by the respective parties and it is for the Arbitrator
to decide the issue. Admittedly, the parties before me are the partners who
initially brought into the existence of the partnership firm which was
reconstituted on 22.05.2020. The reconstitution of the partnership deed is only a
supplementation of the original partnership which came into existence on
20.03.2019.
10. It is to be noted that the original partnership deed also provided for an
Arbitration and the reconstituted partnership deed (supplementation deed) also
contains the clause of Arbitration. When that being so, I do not find any
impediment in appointing an Arbitrator.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No:4/7
Arb.O.P.(Comm.Div.) No. 275 of 2024
11. In such view of the matter, this Court appoints
Mr.J.Krishnamoorthy, Former District Judge, residing at B-2/D,
Nutechkrishna, New D.No.37 (old No.15), Soundararajan Street, T.Nagar,
Chennai – 600 017 as sole Arbitrator to enter upon the dispute between the
petitioners and the respondent.
12. The learned Sole Arbitrator is entitled to fix his fees as per the
Schedule-IV to the Act. This Court further requests the learned Sole Arbitrator to
endeavour to decide the dispute as expeditiously as possible.
13. Accordingly, this Arbitration Original Petition is ordered.
10.09.2024
Index :Yes/No
Speaking Order/ Non-Speaking Order
Gba
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No:5/7
Arb.O.P.(Comm.Div.) No. 275 of 2024
K.KUMARESH BABU, J.
Gba
Arb.O.P. (Com.Div.) No.275 of 2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No:6/7
Arb.O.P.(Comm.Div.) No. 275 of 2024
10.09.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No:7/7
