- (1.) THE Court.-THE instant application has been made by Mustt. Musarrat Jahan under section 20 of the Arbitration Act, inter alia, praying that the Arbitration Agreement contained in the Deed of Partnership dated March 14, 1990 be filed in this Hon'ble Court and for further and other consequential orders. THE respondent is Swapan Kumar Poddar. It is not disputed between the parties that there was a Partnership Deed as between the parties dated March 14, 1990. THE said Partnership Deed also contained an Arbitration Clause which, inter alia, provided that any dispute between the partners shall be referred to the Arbitration of a common find or acquaintance for her/his decision and the decision of the Arbitrator shall be binding in all matters. THE disputes which are sought to be referred to arbitration are specified in paragraph 27 of the Petition which are as follows :- "(a) Is the partnership firm of M/s. Indian Beauty liable to be dissolved by virtue of the notice dated February 5, 1992 given by your petitioner to the Respondent? (b) Is the partnership firm of M/s. Indian Beauty, in the facts and circumstances of the case, liable to be dissolved by this Hon'ble Court at just and equitable ground and that the business of the said firm cannot be carried on, save at a loss ? (c) Has the respondent started a new partnership business under the name and style of M/s. Indian Beauty Inc. by using and utilising the assets, customers and goodwill of the partnership firm of M/s. Indian Beauty? (d) Are the funds, assets and goodwill of the new partnership firm of M/s. Indian Beauty Inc. part and parcel of the funds, assets and goodwill of the partnership firm of M/s. Indian Beauty? (e) Is your petitioner entitled to a sum of Rs. 50,00,000/- on account of her share of profit in the partnership firm of M/s. Indian Beauty till the date of dissolution? (f) Is the respondent liable and accountable to your petitioner on account of her share of profit in the said partnership firm of M/s. Indian Beauty for the months of March 1990 till February 1992 @ Rs. 1,00,000/- per month ? (g) Is the respondent liable and accountable to your petitioner for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- for doing business with M/s. Juscha Jochter Reche Brandt GMBH upto February 1992 by syphoning away the customers of the partnership firm of M/s. Indian Beauty ? (h) What amount or amounts is your petitioner entitled to receive from the respondent on account of her 50% share of profit in the said partnership firm as also its goodwill and assets ? (i) Has the respondent committed breaches of Terms and conditions of the Partnership Deed dated March 14, 1990 and is the respondent liable to render true and faithful accounts to your petitioner in respect of his business? (j) Is your petitioner entitled to claim interest @ 18% per annum on her outstanding dues and is the respondent liable to pay the same ?"
(2.) MR. Jayanta Mitter, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the firm was not registered and as such section 69 of the Partnership Act operates as a bar to the instant application. However, section 69(3) (a) clearly provides that the bar created under sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 69 shall not affect the enforcement of any right to sue for the dissolution of a firm/or for account of a dissolved firm or any right or power to realise a property of a dissolved firm. I am unable to accept the submissions made on behalf of the respondent that the application is barred by the provisions of section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act. The other contention of Mr. Mitter was that there are serious allegations and counter allegations made by the parties against each other and this Court in the facts and circumstances of this case should hold that sufficient cause has been shown by his client for not directing filing of the Arbitration Agreement as provided under section 20(4) of the Arbitration Act. The petitioner made allegations in the petition against the respondent that the respondent siphoned away the assets and goodwill of the firm of M/s. Indian Beauty. The petitioner also stated that the respondent misappropriated and misapplied the funds and assets and important documents and papers of M/s. Indian Beauty to abolish and/or ruin the instant Partnership Firm to achieve his evil desire and personal gain and benefit. The petitioner also stated that the said Partnership Firm of M/s. Indian Beauty was never dissolved by any document.
(3.) THE respondent in his Affidavit-in-Opposition, inter alia annexed a copy of the letter dated April 30, 1991 purported to have been written by the petitioner to the respondent which purports to be a Notice of Retirement by the petitioner by end of July, 1991. THE said letter purports to contain an allegation that the petitioner may resign after receiving the capital which the petitioner invested. THE respondent relies on another document alleged to be signed by the petitioner dated July 31, 1991 by which the petitioner is alleged to have made a statement that she has retired and relinquished all rights and interests in the firm M/s. Indian Beauty, in favour of the respondent Swapan Kumar Poddar who shall be entitled to continue with the said business of the firm in any manner as he may choose. By the said letter she is also alleged to have made a statement that the petitioner confirmed that she has received in time her capital which was invested and that she has no claim or liability about the profit and loss of the said firm M/s. Indian Beauty. Xerox copies of these documents are annexed to the Affidavit-in-Opposition and they are alleged to have been signed by the petitioner.;