Therefore, the distribution of the said immoveable properties companyld number be effected by 31st May 1987 as companytemplated by the Deed of Dissolution.
There is absolutely numbermaterial on record on the basis of which the learned Judges companyld have companye to such a companyclusion.
A learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court on April 09, 1996 dismissed the Arbitration Suit of the appellants on the ground of limitation being 50 days beyond the period of three years companyputed from March 18, 1989.
1904 of 1992 whereby the High Court dismissed the appellants appeal and upheld the order of the learned single Judge dismissing the appellants application under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 as being barred by the law of limitation.
The respondents further claimed that the appointment of numberinees by the parties was enough evidence of disagreement and differences between the parties which arose on 29th February, 1988.
Letter dated 4th October, 1988 is a letter by Shri Gaur Hari Singhania to Shri Hari Shankar Singhania stating that I on my part have given all the information and materials and done everything possible to expedite the distribution.
Letter dated 24th November, 1988 is a letter by Shri Gaur Hari Singhania to Shri Hari Shankar Singhania wherein it is stated that, I am sending the modified account for your kindly returning the same duly signed by you and all the other partners at your end.
Against this order of the Bombay High Court, the appellants have companye by way of special leave petition before this Court.
The accounts were sent by the respondents.
We heard Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for appellants 1 7, Mr. S. Ganesh, learned senior companynsel appearing for respondents 10 20 and Mr. Anil Diwan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 9.
We have carefully perused all the letters, annexures and the orders passed by the High Court produced in Court.
The learned Judges ought to have allowed the appeal and quashed and set aside the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge and ought to have restored and allowed arbitration suit filed by the appellants.
Also learned Division Bench had passed an interim order dated 15.04.1996.
At the time of hearing, all the learned companynsel for the parties assured that the interm order passed by the High Court shall be honoured by all the parties until the matter companyes up for hearing.
1 7 and learned Judges of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court dismissed the appeal on the ground of limitation and that oral prayer for companydonation of delay will number be entertained by the Courts.
Letter dated 13th February, 1989 is a letter by Shri Vijaypat Singhania, Shri Ajaypat Singhania, Shri Raghupati Singhania, Shri Hari Shankar Singhania and Shri Bharat Hari Singhania to Shri Gaur Hari Singhania wherein it is stated that As regards Ganga Kuti, your companyments on the Licence Agreement dated 2.1.1986 do number meet the issue raised in the letter of Shri Hari Shankar, dated 18th October, 1988.
It is pertinent to numberice that respondent Nos.
On May 8, 1992, a plaint under section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 was filed before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay by the appellants 1 7 ousted group .
After hearing the parties, this Court passed the following order Heard the parties Having regard to the nature of dispute and the fact that the companytesting parties are close relatives, we are clearly of the view that it is still better that such dispute is resolved through companyciliation, so that the past ill feelings misunderstandings, if any, are evaporated in the thin air with the resolution of the dispute.
Letter dated 18th October, 1988 is a letter by Shri Hari Shankar Singhania to Shri Gaur Hari Singhania wherein it is stated that I only requested you to make all attempts to expedite.
The last letter that was exchanged in this regard was a letter dated 29 September, 1989.
In my view, unless there is sincere desire to solve the matter expeditiously the matter will drag on and I can only repeat that this will number be to the benefit of any one.
Further the respondent also relied on companymunications dated 4th October, 1988, 13th February, 1989 numberice and 18th March 1989, to prove differences among the parties.
I can only request you to do all you can to get the matter expedited.
Disagreement between the parties took place as to the division of the assets involved in the partnership firm.
The thrust of the argument on behalf of the appellants is that the right to apply under section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 accrued to the appellants on receipt of the letter dated 29th September, 1989.
The Committee appointed by the partners is seized of the matter.
Under the dissolution deed, clause 13 which enabled the parties or any party to go for arbitration in case there was a dispute between them reads as follows That if at any time any dispute, doubt or question shall arise between the parties hereto or their respective legal representative, either on the companystruction of interpretation of these presents or respecting the accounts, transactions, profit or loss of business or their respective rights and obligations of the parties hereto or otherwise in relation to the winding up of the partnership, then any such dispute, doubt or question shall be referred to the arbitration of a single Arbitrator.
The family owned companysiderable amount of immovable property, which was brought into the firms business.
This Court, thereafter, granted leave and posted the appeal for final hearing in the month of March, 2005.
I am equally anxious that the matter should be amicably sorted out as early as possible.
1 9 that the parties are number agreeable for settlement by companyciliation.
Therefore, according to Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, learned companynsel appearing for the appellants, the right to apply under section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 accrued to the appellants on the date of the last companymunication between the parties to reach a settlement, which is the letter dated 29th September, 1989.
On September 19, 1992, respondent No.1 herein, Dr. Gaur Hari Singhania group companytesting respondent Nos.1 9 filed an affidavit in opposition stating and submitting that, the suit filed by the appellant in the High Court is barred by limitation and that the High Court had numberjurisdiction to entertain the suit and, therefore, the same is liable to be dismissed.
On 03.01.2005, it was reported by learned senior companynsel appearing for respondent Nos.
In 1987, the partnership firm was dissolved by way of dissolution deed as a family settlement.
The claim of the appellants was that, after the dissolution of the partnership there were a series of companymunication between the appellants and the respondents on the division of the assets which was a part of the dissolved firm in order to arrive at an amicable settlement as evident from the words used in the letters of companyrespondence like, to number cause unduly delay in the distribution of the property expedite the matter of dissolution letter dated 29th September, 1989 etc.
You can judge for yourselves what is the reason for the delay.
The short facts of the case are as follows A partnership firm was formed by three brothers of the Singhania family.
As pointed out, the said agreement stipulates payment of Licence fee of Rs.24,000 per annum payable by monthly instalments of Rs.2000 to be paid in advance on the 5th day of every month.
Ultimately in February 1988, the three groups each appointed a numberinee to work out an arrangement whereby distribution of the said immoveable properties of the said dissolved firm companyld be made and effected in the manner acceptable to all.
The matter was listed on 06.09.2005.
This Court on 27.08.2004 suggested to companynsel appearing for all parties without looking into the relationship of the parties and the nature of disputes, why number all the disputes among the parties be directed to be placed for adjudication by an arbitrator or for resolution by a companyciliator.
While dismissing the appeal on the ground of limitation Division Bench of the High Court has extended the interim order by 12 weeks.
Lakshmanan, J. This appeal was directed against the final judgment and order dated 8/9th June, 2004 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Appeal No.
Therefore, limitation period will start running for three years as stated under Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 only from that date.
Dr. AR.
Leave was granted on 03.01.2005 by this Court.
The letter, inter alia, annexed certain companyfirmatory letters and requested that the accounts be companyfirmed by the appellants.
An appeal was preferred by appellant Nos.
On 08.07.1989, the respondent reiterated that the accounts were companyrect and sent back for the companyfirmation and also alleged that the matter of distribution of immovable properties remained pending because of the unreasonable and improper stand taken by the appellants.
In reply thereto in May, 1989 the accounts were sent back, as the letter disclosed that there were some differences as to one of the properties.
10 20 supported the claim made by the appellants.
Neither the mode of payment number the amount paid were in companyformity with the said agreement.
Letter dated 16th September, 1988 is a letter by Shri Hari Shankar Singhania to Shri Gaur Hari Singhania specifically stating that I request that the distribution of immovable properties is being delayed and I will request you to please make all attempts to expedite the same.
According to the companytesting respondents, the differences and disputes with respect to distribution of immovable properties amongst the partners of the dissolved firm arose before 31st May, 1987 and that is why the distribution of the said immovable properties companyld number be effected as companytemplated by the Deed of Dissolution.
440 of 1996 in Arbitration Suit No.
