This order appoints an Advocate of the Court as the Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate disputes between partners under Clause 13 of the Partnership Deed, 1992, following a consent by the parties after initial resistance.
N. Damodaran appointed as Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate disputes within six months; interim injunction extended for six weeks.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
O.P.No.498 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 27.08.2019
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA
O.P.No.498 of 2019
A.R.Prabhakar .. Petitioner
Vs.
1. V.G.B. Sivarama Prasad
2. A.G.Hima Rani
3. Kotla Apparao
4. Kotla Rama Krishna Mohanarao
5. Kotla Venkata Prasada Rao
6. D.Bulamma
7. A.R.Pappa .. Respondents
* * *
Prayer : Petition filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, praying to appoint an Arbitrator under Clause 13 of the Partnership Deed dated 24.01.1992 to adjudicate upon the differences and disputes between the parties hereto as per the Partnership Deed dated 24.01.1992.
1/8
O.P.No.498 of 2019
Mr.S.Sivashanmugam for RR 3 & 4 Mr.P.Munusamy for R7 Mr.M.Krishnamoorthy for R5
R2 – served - NA
O R D E R
This Original Petition is filed seeking for appointment of an Arbitrator under Clause 13 of the Partnership Deed dated 24.01.1992 to adjudicate upon the differences and disputes between the parties hereto as per the Partnership Deed dated 24.01.1992.
2/8
O.P.No.498 of 2019
the Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, EDF-II, Team-IX(A), Vepery, Chennai, alleging that the shares of respondents 3, 4 and 6 in the firm were not settled, who in turn, directed the petitioner to appear for enquiry on 12.04.2019. The petitioner appeared before the enquiry officer and placed all the materials to show that the said persons retired from the firm in 2005 and after nearly 14 years, without any communication whatsoever in the interregnum, they made the present false claim.
attempting to disturb the day-to-day affairs of the firm, prior to the filing of this petition, the petitioner filed A.No.476 of 2019 under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short, “the Act”) seeking an order of injunction restraining the respondents 3, 4 and 6 from interfering with their day-to-day affairs, which relief was granted by this Court on 27.04.2019.
the Partnership Deed dated 21.02.1992, which provides for arbitration of disputes, sent a notice dated 25.05.2019 nominating a retired District Judge as their arbitrator and sought for the consent of the
3/8
O.P.No.498 of 2019
respondents. Since there was no response from the respondents, the petitioner is before this Court with this petition under Section 11(6) of the Act.
resisting the prayer of the petitioner stating that there is no arbitrable dispute between the parties. It is their submission that they have not resigned from the partnership firm as alleged by the petitioner and those letters are the outcome of the forgery committed by the petitioner. It is also stated that the petitioner has not included one Mr.Kotla Lakshmi Narayana, who was a partner and died on 29.08.2005 or his legal heirs and thus, this petition is not maintainable on that score also.
15.07.2019 supporting the prayer of the petitioner. It is stated by the fifth respondent that the respondents 3 and 4 and himself gave letters
of retirement in 2005 and their another brother one Mr.Kotla Laksminarayana's son gave such letter on behalf of his father. Accordingly, the firm was reconstituted and only in the year 2012, he was again inducted in the firm as partner with 35% share. He also stated that he was given his proportionate share by the firm and only
4/8
O.P.No.498 of 2019
due to the differences between his brothers, other family members and himself, the criminal complaint was given by respondents 3, 4 and 6 without any basis after 14 years of their retirement.
she supports the prayer of her son.
of the firm and they have no objection in allowing this petition.
none appears on her behalf.
materials placed before this Court.
the prayer initially, a consent was given by the counsels for the parties for the appointment of an Advocate of this Court as the Sole Arbitrator.
5/8
O.P.No.498 of 2019
the date of receipt of a copy of this order to enable the parties to file appropriate applications for appropriate reliefs before the learned Arbitrator.
6/8
O.P.No.498 of 2019
application is consequently, closed. The parties shall bear their own costs.
27.08.2019
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes
gg
7/8
O.P.No.498 of 2019
PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, J.
gg
O.P.No.498 of 2019
and O.A.No.476 of 2019
27.08.2019
8/8
2 issues framed by the court
Whether an arbitrator can be appointed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 under the aforesaid clause of the Partnership Deed.
Whether the parties have reached a consensus to appoint a specific arbitrator.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
A.R. Prabhakar
V.G.B. Sivarama Prasad
A.G. Hima Rani
Kotla Apparao
Kotla Rama Krishna Mohanarao
Kotla Venkata Prasada Rao
Puspha Sathyanarayana
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
