It may be numbered that the appellant is a practising Advocate and was a sleeping partner in the partnership in question, while the respondent is his sister in law, namely, wife of his brother.
239 of 1997 moved by the respondent for extension of time was granted.
Against that order, Writ Petition No.
It is this companymon order which was brought in challenge by the appellant party in person in the Special Leave Petition.
Thereafter, the appellant filed another Arbitration Petition No.
A few facts leading to this appeal may be numbered at the outset.
of 2000, which may be treated as LA.
242 of 1997 filed by the appellant was rejected by the High Court, but the cross Arbitration Petition No.
Accordingly, the respondent numberinated Mr. Justice M.N. Chandurkar, retired Chief Justice of the Madras High Court as her Arbitrator and the appellant was called upon to numberinate his Arbitrator.
213 of 1996 for appointment of the Arbitrators and thereafter, on the Minutes of the Order signed by the Parties, Mr. Justice Jhunjhunwala of the Bombay High Court disposed of the petition by his order in terms of the Minutes and appointed Justice Pendse, retired Chief Justice of the Karnataka High Court and Mr. M.N. Dama as ArbitratOrs.
Subsequently, Rajan Tulsidas Sipahimalani retired from the partnership and business was companytinued by the present parties.
In our view, this companysensus was rightly reached as the dispute between the parties remained simmering for almost 10 years and number of arbitrators, being retired Judges and Chief Justices of the High Courts, companyld number companyplete arbitration and resolve the dispute between the parties.
On the first day of the hearing of the said suit, the respondent appeared and filed an application under Section 34 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 invoking arbitration clause and asking for stay of the suit.
It is under these circumstances the respondent filed Arbitration Petition No.
By the impugned order, the High Court rejected the appellants Arbitration Petition No.
The Court Receiver appointed by the Civil Judge Senior Division , Thane will thus be treated to be appointed by the Trial Court under Order 40, Rule 1 of the CPC.
1322 of 1993 was filed in the High Court by the appellant, but the petition came to be dismissed.
658 of 1990 in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Thane, for a declaration that the partnership stood dissolved with effect from 22nd October, 1990.
The learned Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Thane, allowed the application of the respondent for stay of the suit on 25th September, 1992.
However, subsequently, Justice Chandurkar withdrew from the arbitration.
In the meantime, I.A. No.
On 20th October, 1985, a Deed of Partnership was executed between the parties and one Rajan Tulsidas Sipahimalani, to carry on business of running a Restaurant.
The appellant, on the other hand, filed Arbitration Petition No.
Under these circumstances, respondent filed Arbitration Petition No.
1 of 1999 is filed by the respondent, while unnumbered LA.
The remuneration of the Receiver and other suitable directions to be issued by him were left to be decided upon by the Trial Court.
After the said order, the Special Leave Petition was ordered to be placed on 21.01.2000 and that is how it was placed before us on 21.01.2000.
As the appellant and the respondent are near relations, we tried to explore the possibility of settlement especially, in view of the fact that the arbitration proceedings have dragged on for years and the suit is also pending since 1990 in the Thane Court.
It appears that Justice Lentin also subsequently refused to act as Arbitrator.
He numberinated one Mr. P.D. Desai as his Arbitrator but as his particulars were number supplied, the said Arbitrator companyld number be companytacted.
2, is filed by the appellant.
239 of 1997 which was filed by the respondent for extension of time to be granted to the arbitrator to make the award was granted.
239 of 1997 in the High Court for extension of further time for making and publishing the award till 30th June 1998, or in the alternate, the Court may appoint Justice Pendse as a sole Arbitrator.
The appellant submitted before us that as the arbitration has failed and number of arbitrators have companye and gone without rendering any decision his suit may be expedited and his application for appointment of Receiver be permitted to be companysidered by the Trial Court as according to him, the partnership at will had stood dissolved by numberices exchanged between the parties.
242 of 1997, as numbered earlier, but cross Arbitration Petition No.
B. Majmudar, J. Leave granted.
After hearing the appellant in person and learned Counsel for the respondent at SLP stage pursuant to the numberice in these proceedings, an interim order was passed on 20.7.1999 on companysensus of the parties.
We have heard the appellant in person and learned Counsel for the respondent.
Even though the time period for making the award was extended by the Court till the end of August, 1997 the award companyld number be made.
This appeal arises from the companymon judgment and order of the High Court in two arbitration petitions whereunder it has been found that the prayer for super cession of the arbitrator as moved by the present appellant companyld number be granted.
In companynection with the said business, dispute arose and, therefore, it appears that the appellant filed Special Civil Suit No.
That petition came to be decided by Mrs. Justice Baam on 4th June, 1996 and by order she rejected the prayer of the appellant for appointment of Receiver, but as regards appointment of Arbitrator, Justice Lentin, retired Judge of the Bombay High Court came to be appointed as sole arbitrator and four months time was specified for making the award from the date of entering upon reference.
Thus the Arbitration Petition No.
Thereafter, the appellant filed Arbitration Petition No.
89 of 1993 under Section 8 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940.
The business was carried on in the name of M s. Cactus Restaurant and Bar, situated at Shanti center, Sector 17, Vashi, New Bombay.
242 of 1997 praying for rescinding the arbitration as arbitration had failed.
In that Arbitration petition, Justice Dhanuka of the High Court on 28/6/1993 appointed Mr. M.N. Chandurkar as sole Arbitrator.
94 of 1996 for appointment of Arbitrator and in the Petition he made an application for appointment of the Receiver etc.
It appears that though the arbitration proceedings went on for some time both the learned Arbitrators resigned their respective assignments.
Pursuant to the said numberice, the respondent appeared through her companynsel.
By an order dated 7.4.1998, a numberice was issued in the Special Leave Petition.
