- (1.) This appeal is directed against an order dated April 20, 2013 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, 4th Court, Howrah. The impugned order was passed in accordance with the provisions of Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, restraining the appellant/opposite party, his men and agents and employees from encumbering and/or transferring and/or disposing of the schedule mentioned property of the firm, running under the name and style of 'M/s. Supplier Syndicate', pending dispute between the parties in this regard.
(2.) The facts of this case in a nutshell are as under: A deed of partnership was executed by and between the parties on December 31, 1997 in respect of the business running under the name and style 'M/s. Supplier Syndicate'. On the basis of the above deed of partnership, the respondent was entitled to get 25 per cent share and the appellant was entitled to 75 per cent share of the above partnership business. The above deed of partnership contained a condition that in case of any dispute or difference which might arise by and between the partners in respect of the accounts or the rights and liabilities of the partners or any matter relating to the firm should be referred to arbitration and the arbitrator and his decision should be submitted within the meaning of Arbitration Act, 1940.
(3.) On or about March 22, 2010, the respondent/plaintiff served a notice through his learned Advocate to the appellant/opposite party alleging that the respondent/plaintiff was entitled to 25 per cent share in the profit and losses of the above partnership firm aggregating a sum of Rs.60,00,000/- for 13 years. The appellant/opposite party replied to the above notice by a communication dated April 13, 2010 refuting the allegations made therein. By a further communication dated June 21, 2010, the respondent/plaintiff sought to appoint one Mridul Roy, a retired Judge, for acting as an arbitrator invoking the provisions of Clause 21 contained in the deed of partnership dated December 31, 1997. The appellant/opposite party had acknowledged the notice but he did not give reply to the same.;