PRAKASH TATIA, J. - (1.) THE petitioner has submitted the application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1966 (for short 'the Act of 1996') for appointment of Arbitrator with the allegation that the petitioner with respondent-Bhanwar Lal started business in partnership in the name of M/s. B.P. Textiles. A partnership deed was duly executed on 13.8.1975 and the partnership is a registered partnership firm under the provisions of Partnership Act. As per the petitioner, the firm took an industrial plot No. E.53 having area of 3,500 square meters on lease from RIICO in the town of Pali at Mandiya Road. A lease deed was executed and as per the petitioner, in favour of both the partners constituting partnership firm M/s. B.P. Textiles. According to the petitioner, this lease deed is subsisting till today. According to the petitioner himself, he separated from the business of the firm on 16.4.1978, however, the accounts books as well as properties remained in possession of respondent-Bhanwar Lal. It is also alleged that Rs. 60,225.71 paise of the petitioner remained deposited with the firm, obviously now with respondent-Bhanwar Lal, who became proprietor of the firm when the petitioner separated from the partnership in question. It is submitted by the petitioner that he gave notice under Section 63 of the Partnership Act to the Registrar of the Firms in prescribed form No. E and respondent Bhanwar Lal continued to run the firm M/s. B.P. Textiles. Inspite of the petitioner's separation, according to the petitioner, the dissolution of the firm did not take place in accordance with law, as neither he nor respondent-Bhanwar Lal gave notice regarding dissolution of the firm at will as per Section 43 of the Partnership Act. It is stated that, on the contrary, respondent-Bhanwar Lal continued the business in the name and style of M/s. B.P. Textiles by treating his son Om Prakash as partner. According to the petitioner, mere separation/ stoppage of business does not amount to dissolution and further right to sue for dissolution of a continuing firm exists so long as the partnership continues, for this contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment delivered in the case of Haramohan Poddar and ors. v. Sudarson Poddar, (AIR 1921 Calcutta 538) and with the help of the judgment of this Court delivered in the case of Dinesh Jangid v. Laxmi Kant Jangid, (2007(2) WLC (Raj.) 703), it was submitted that, after dissolution of firm, partnership still subsists for purpose of completing pending transactions, winding up, settlement of accounts and other rights and obligations inter se parties.
(2.) WITH this assumption that the firm has not been dissolved, the petitioner requested respondent-Bhanwar Lal to execute a dissolution deed in accordance with law and to finalize the accounts but on one pretext or the other, the respondent deferred the same and looking to the old relation between the petitioner and the respondent, the petitioner did not take any serious step to avoid the dispute and to get the matter amicably settled. According to the petitioner, in response to the letter from the Income-tax Department, the petitioner wrote a letter on 4.3.1982 that he separated from M/s. B.P. Textiles and the books of the firm etc. are lying with other partner respondent-Bhanwar Lal. It is also alleged that on the basis of forged letter Ex.7, respondent-Bhanwar Lal got a binding agreement for the leased industrial plot of the petitioner and the respondent with RIICO on 15.11.1984 without knowledge and consent of the petitioner and when the petitioner came to know of it, he approached RIICO and after looking into all the facts and circumstances of the case, RIICO vide its order dated 22.11.2005 cancelled the binding agreement dated 15.11.1984 and, ultimately, RIICO directed both the partners, the petitioner and the respondent, to get the matter settled through Arbitrator as required by the partnership deed. The petitioner thereafter gave notice on 28.6.2005 through his advocate to respondent-Bhanwar Lal seeking dissolution of the firm in accordance with law and also for rendition of accounts, distribution of movable and immovable properties of the firm and to pay the amount of Rs. 60,225.71 and hand-over possession of movable properties of his share along with mesne profit.
(3.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, the respondent did not respond to the petitioner's notice, then the petitioner served another notice dated 22.8.2005 and in this notice, the petitioner requested for appointment of arbitrator under the provisions of the Act of 1996. It is stated that in response to that, the respondent gave evasive reply Annex. 6 that there is no need to appoint any arbitrator. Hence the petitioner has submitted this application under Section 11 of the Act of 1996 for appointment of the arbitrator.;