- (1.)HEARD both the parties.
(2.)THE Petitioners have filed the present Petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. it is the contention of the Petitioners that they are a registered partnership firm, which is at Will. The Petitioners have dissolved the partnership by their counsel's letter dated 7th October, 2002. Once the partnership is at Will and has been dissolved, considering the law laid down by the Apex Court to protect the property of the partnership firm, the Court should appoint Receiver for the partnership's assets. Learned counsel for the Petitioners has drawn my attention to the documents on record and the averments made in the Petition.
(3.)ON the other hand, on behalf of the Respondents, learned counsel contends that this Court would have no jurisdiction to entertain the Petition under Section 9 of the Act, 1996. It is contended that the Petitioners claims to be partners alongwith Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3, now transposed as Respondents, who are sued have been shown as partners, in the Deed of Partnership dated 8th December, 1995. That partnership is not admittedly registered. Therefore, the dissolution sought for by the Petitioners was in respect of a partnership which ceased to exist consequent on a new partnership coming into existence by induction of additional partners whose names are not registered with the Register of Firms. The earlier Partnership had Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No. 1 as partners. The partnership of the year 1990 was registered on 28th May, 1990. This has been so pointed out, considering Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act as amended in the State of Maharashtra. It is contended that this Court would have no jurisdiction to hear and entertain the present Petition. If that be so, reliefs as sought ought to be rejected. In the alternative, it is contended that if this Court comes to the conclusion that this Court has jurisdiction, then the admitted position is that the Petitioners along with the newly added Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 have never been incharge of the assets of the partnership. The business of a hotel was being conducted by Respondent Nos. 1 to 4. The hotel is a running concern, Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 are abroad. In the circumstances, if Receiver is to be appointed, the Respondents should be appointed as agents of the Receiver considering that there is a running business of a hotel.