- (1.) In the respondent resisting the constitution of the arbitral tribunal as invited by the petitioner, several fundamental issues have been raised, some going to the cutting-edge of arbitration law. The respondent insists that the present request under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is not maintainable in view of both the provisions of the said Act of 1996 and Section 69 of the Partnership Act, 1932.
(2.) The petitioner claims to be a partnership firm, now registered, with parents and son Sethis as its recorded partners. There is no dispute that the firm has been registered prior to the present request being carried to the Chief Justice or his designate and the names of the partners of the petitioner-firm are now reflected in the appropriate register of firms.
(3.) The petitioner-firm is engaged in the construction business and it is the admitted position that the parties entered into an agreement contained in a letter of February 12, 2007 issued by the respondent for construction of buildings in a project known as Kolkata West International City floated by the respondent. Clause 16 of the agreement is relied upon by the petitioner as the arbitration clause: "16. ARBITRATION: Any dispute arising out of this contract, the decision of the Managing Director, Unitech Limited will be final and binding to contractor.";