- 1 -
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 3191' DAY OF AUGUST 2016-«SIT
BEFORE V".""
THE HONBLE MRJUSTICE AJIT J GU11§:JE¥L~: I I AL
CMP. No.2S3 0I='2009fi
BETWEEN 1 3
SR1 ASHOK SINGH
S/O SR1 SUBBARAJ SINGH
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS.
PARTNER ' _ ..
M/S SB MINERALS,
P B NO.58, RANIPET
HOSPET.
_ PETITIONER
(By SR1 : L M1r:»IIII3AI§IANpAI?yA;._"AI;v.) .
AND
3.. SR1 ES GOPAL ';3AING'H.
S/0 LA'IE'ESRI;;.B H SINGH
_.;_jAGE.D ABOUT 46 YEARS
'D11g__]§3C.'.1'OR, R'/~ -------- KRISHNA PALACE
- '; ,. I 53TA'If1QN..ROAD, HOSPET -- 583 201.
N" '
SR} 8 DEEPAK SJENGH
. /0 Lz"~.'}'I'.ABoUT 44 YEARS
MANAGING DIRECTOR
I I SA}.-KRISHNA MINERALS PVT LTD
-R/A BESIDES SVK TEMPLE PATEL NAGAR
" EIOSPET -~ 583 20}.
SR1 B S SREENIVAS SINGH
S/O LATE B H SHANKAR SINGH
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
DIRECTOR, KASTURI ISPAT
SVK HOUSE. BASAVESHWARA BADAVAN E
HOSPET-- 583 20}.
4. SR1 B S PANDURANGA SINGH
S/O LATE B H SBANKAR SINGH
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
DIRECTOR, KASTURI ISPAT.
SVK HOUSE
BASAVESHWARA BADAVANE
HOSPET -- 533 201.
5. SR1 S B JAIRAJ SINGH
S/O LATE SR1 B S BALA.J1.SINGH_
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS " "
R/A BALAJI SADHAN ' _
OPP DOCTOR VASTARD HOSPITAL
BASAVESHWARA BADAVANE A. ._ '~ _
HOSPET-- 533 201." " ' I .. O-
6. SRJBRANAND V_
S/O B S PRITI*1VIRAJiSINGHA ' »
R/A H.OTEL...S'Rf<;:ANAN COMPLEX
COLLGE RO;AD.«1':OS_1éBfr « 533 201.
7. SMT B L JAYA _BA.1j; LSVK)" ~ 4.
W/O I.4A'TERBV.S.R'I,A2{MIN;ARAYANA SINGH
AGED ABOUT' 3:2.=YEARS
V 'BASAVANNA CANAL
. _ HOSRET 25533 201:'
3-. Mrs MIvNE.RALS
' ._ A._BARTR.ERSHIP FIRM,
'REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNERS
HAVING 'OFFICE AT: POST BOX NO.85
RARIRET, HOSPET -- 533 201.
. RESPONDENTS
{By._S’R1:’D.L.N.RAO, SR. ADV. FOR SMT. S RANURADHA
AND SR}. ANIRUDH ANAND ADVS. FOR R6 :31 R8
~ —-SRI:LA){D/EINARAYANA ADV. FOR R13 3: 4
SRLJEEVAN NEERALGI FOR R2
R5 81 7 SERVED)
– 5 –
partners on the other in respect of sharing of the profits.
This petition is filed accompanied by a partnershi.p:d:eed
dated 18.2.2002 {though stated in the _
petition as 10.3.2002). Pursuant to re»; “‘ 0’
constitution of partnership deedilof
opened a Bank account
the said accounts were so
authorised by all the par
3. Indee’d,0d’i;:th’Ve .has’~.yeferred to certain
Clauses of Apparently, the case
of the -on the partnership deed
dated 17.6zQOQ2V;V’ 0 it
4″. On Lnoitice, respondents have entered
vappearartcchjéand filed their statement of objections. The
of the respondents is that the
–V petitioner issnot a partner in the partnership deed dated
0 Theyiwould specifically contend that the
prayer made in the petition is to invoke the
harbitral clause of the partnership agreement dated
10.3.2002, which according to them is not in existence.
/ 5/3
.. 3 ,.
that it is a fabricated document, the question of
appointing an Arbitrator in the circumstance does not
arise.
7. Mr. Laxminarayana, learned
for respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 4 _
arguments of Mr. D.L.N.Rao,
He further submits that there
between the parties and the referred to
an Arbitrator. 0 0. I it it
tiaitre giifc-*:n_”‘1!.Vi;3r anhiiidous consideration to the
submissions madt§tj’btYihe.’1.earned counsel appearing for
the petitionerpas. \i<IeH°.as" respondents.
D.L.N.Rao, learned Senior Counsel
i.S'*iii_gh'tv4in.,2V_s£ibi'£iitting that the Very basis of the petition
is the partnership agreement dated 10.3.2002, which is
it nct_ inV'e:§<istence at all. Even assuming that there is a
it Ljrpographicai error and instead of 17.6.2002 is being
"shown as 10.3.2002 in the prayer column, after looking
/' =
into the said documents, it does not indicate that there
/
_ 9 –
is an arbitral clause. But however, what is significant is
that immediately after filing the petition, the petitioiier
has filed an application i.e.. Misc. Petition .
on 2. l.20l0 producing reievant _p.a.rt_ners–.hip’ ti”
17.6.2002. A perusal of the Zsaicifl
clearly indicate that the petitioneri’proposesA on ” it
the said documents. l.\’Io;3i..Aof..,fuEthe said
application it is StElt€V(i””1)i;1i’j5wiL lg}ojrrectV:p’a_rtI1ership deed
by which the partnership
deed is ysarne is produced at
is xretqiiired to be substituted
by was re–constituted on
17.6,i2o02.i”‘iv iffthe. ‘aaa partnership deed dated
looiiedminto, I am of the View that it would
itarybitral clause. It is relevant to extract
certain of the said partnership deed dated
One of the clause would read as thus:
it “Whereas the above said parties namely
party No.1 to 5 were carrying on business in
partnership under the name and style of
M/s S.B.l\/Iinerais at Hospet along with ]£
/
-10-
Sri.B.S.Nanda Kumar Singh,
Sri.B.S.Laxminaraya.na Singh and
B.S.PrithiViraj Singh as evidenced V.
deed of partnership dated 2116 April, 0 Whereas the said p Singh died on 6.6.2002 andait
admit Smt. B.L.Jaya__ e”a:%”‘e W/oil’ 0
B.S.Laxrr1inarayana a
the deceased w;’e:f. and -i.a:lso””i.partne1″s
B.S.Nanda l”‘sii;:1;giii _ and
Sri.B . S.Prit.,hivira}~– _ 1…’e’>:<:pressed
desire :fro1-in" voluntarily
"was; agreed to admit
and B.S.Ashok Singh
aslpartnelrs. "-1.tfz";'6';2oo2."
_1_0. A4"pe_rusa;l of this clause would clearly indicate
waslreleonstituted on 17.6.2002 inducting
a partner at S.No.8. Indeed. a perusal
of also indicate that in the profit and
."~*.__V"rloss, slzare of the petitioner is 1/8. Clause 12 of the said
A p:."partIf):ership deed would relate to the appointment of an
0 .,A_i'bitrator in case there is a dispute between the parties.
It would read thus:
,, 11 ,,
“In case any disputes among the partners
related to the firms agreement or activities
the same shall be referred to arbitrato1jpsl.._r*._V
whom shall be appointed by the parties~«~a.n»d:
the decision of such arbitrator
biding on such parties.”
11. in the case on hand. it”i.s “be
dispute has arisen between thepartners’ of ivith ll
reference to the sharing, of the”
12. Indeed, p’rL¢’;J%.Voinder several
documents to show that indeed, the said
partnership “”iNa,§=.._ré§constituted on 17.6.2002.
Somfie lloftheni’ be referred fleetingly. One of them is
l,AF’orrn the Commercial Tax Department and the
ihrllllregistration of VAT/COT. A perusal of
the44″saidJF’orm No.1 and also Form. No.58 under Rule 6
would clearly disclose that the petitioner was inducted
asfa partner of the firm. Indeed, the other documents
wiivould also clearly disclose that the petitioner was
inducted as a partner. This certainly would be tentative
-0;
/42
_ 12 _
evidence for this Court to decide the maintainability of
the petition. Indeed, the petition can
maintained, if the petitioner is not a
deed itself, question of he invokingthe arbi’tr-al it ”
the circumstances does not arise}. _ _ _ . _
13. Indeed, a perusaiflof the ‘partnership deed
dated 17.6.2002 as weii as accompanyingvdocnments.
which are produced wouid clearly
indicate that the,_petitio.n.i.s’–certainijfvrriain tainable.
required to consider the
object oftlfie :_niapi11″‘.object of the Act is certainly
to make, provision’ for an arbitral procedure which is
capable of meeting the needs of the
specific’=.?i1’1§_itrati’on and to minimize the supervisory role
of C”ourt_”in’ arbitral process and to permit an arbitral
_Tri.b_unai’ to use mediation, conciliation or other
j_lpiro’cedures during the arbitral proceedings in
T V’ settiement of disputes.
%
_ 13 NM
15. Having said so, 1 am of the View that a dispute
having arisen between the partners of the firni;..o_:’t~he
petition is to be accepted and an Arbitratorw’isi”V.’t’o .
appointed to resolve the dispute ioetween_-‘th’e”
16. insofar as the contention r;egai*ding~..Sectio’n_AGE}
of the Indian Partnership Act«–,…V19.’§2._ is coiivcernricip, this
Court on an earlier occasion itlentical
situation in CM? ].\§oV12-iVif3/A2″{)0′.§j ossiooo on 24.11.2009
wherein this Court has inotxiiiiitihstanding the
fact that deeds’ registered and
assurnir1g’– “‘io;ri’ger in existence, arbitral
clause survives for cio_nsi_d’eration. Another fact which is
A_ requ’ired_f’to” be i’ook_edv into is it is always open for the
Arbitrat.orttoi. rule on his own ‘urisdiction under Section
Iifiltoif the’ij’j_h;rhitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
‘v_HaVing so, petition is to be accepted. Hence, the
A “:i:fo11vo’W_ing order is passed:
(1) Petition is allowed. Justice R.
Gururajan, Former Judge of this Court
(Address: “Sree Harikrupa” No.5()4, 5″‘
-14-
Floor, Sri. Chitrapur Housing Co-
operative Society Ltd., 15″” Cross,1’r»o
Malleswaram, Barlgalore — 560
appointed as sole arbitrator to is
the dispute between the _parties._–‘ ” ‘ u
(2) The sole arbitrator sha.i{‘i.Vei;ttér re1′”!iAtA1;%.f;1C€
and cause notice tr§.t1*z,§ I3art~ies..
(3) The registry to ..eon1n’£u:ojeate this order to
the sole arbitrator}”}aio151g,:A with the
addresses ofvfpartA1’e_s” as the
coun”se§’:;;Eippearingfof’ tt1er11v..
{4} “A1t.l[‘Vo’onterj.tioI1s are I’eft~o}:3en.
sdIj_
Judge