IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RP.No. 357 of 2008()
1. A.M.PREMBHUSHAN, AGED 51
... Petitioner
Vs
1. N.S.THULASIDAS, AGED 53
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.RAJIT
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
Dated :25/06/2008
O R D E R
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
R.P.No.357 of 2008 in A.R.No.34 of 2007
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated: 25th June, 2008
ORDER
The respondent in the Arbitration Request seeks a review of my
order dated 11.1.2008 on the ground that the Arbitration Request
itself is not maintainable since the partnership between the parties is
not a registered one.
2. I have heard the submissions of Mr.Rajit, learned counsel for
the review petitioner and also those of Mr.G.Sreekumar(Chelur),
learned counsel for the respondent.
3. Mr.Rajit drew my attention to the judgment of the Supreme
Court in Jagdish Chandra Gupta v. Kajaria Traders (India) Ltd.
(AIR 1964 S.C. 1882) and would submit that in that case the
Supreme Court had ruled in the context of Section 8(2) of the old
Arbitration Act that arbitration proceedings will also come within the
purview of Section 69(3) of the Indian Partnership Act.
4. I am of the view that the question whether the arbitration
proceedings are maintainable in view of Section 69(3) of the Indian
Partnership Act itself can be made an issue before the Arbitrator. The
review petitioner is permitted to raise this issue before the Arbitrator
and the Arbitrator will decide on the issue of arbitrability of the issues
R.P.No.357/08 – 2 –
referred to him under my order in the context of Section 69(3) of the
Indian Partnership Act as the first issue and give a verdict on that
issue before proceeding further in the matter.
The Review Petition is disposed of as above.
srd PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE