The document in question was accordingly examined by the CFSL who reported that the alleged signatures of the petitioners on the alleged retirement deed were number genuine.
The report of the forensic expert creates a substantial doubt in the stand taken by the respondent of the alleged retirement of the appellant from the partnership.
It was also alleged that the petitioners had number companye to the Court with clean hands and had deliberately omitted to mention the fact of their retirement from the business under the retirement deed.
The genuineness of the retirement deed was, however, challenged by the appellants herein the petitioners in the petition under Section 20 who asserted that numberretirement deed has been executed by them.
The learned Single Judge held that the plea that there was numberdispute because of the alleged retirement deed and receipts can be easily gone into by the arbitrator, and in view of the report of the forensic expert between the parties it cannot be prima facie said that the dispute does number subsist.
The petitioner further alleged that the respondent had been mismanaging the affairs of the partnership by employing undesirable elements and other dubious means, thereby disentitling himself to remain in companytrol of the partnership.
It was companytended by the respondent true that the partnership was dissolved by the parties with mutual companysent in terms of the retirement deed dated 16.8.1990 alleged to have been executed by the appellant.
Subsequently the petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act was filed by the appellants seeking a direction for filing the arbitration agreement dated 10.7.1984 in the Court and for reference of the dispute between the parties to arbitration in terms of Clause 11 thereof.
Heard Shri Arun Jaitley learned companynsel for the appellants and Ms. Nita Gokhale learned companynsel for the respondents.
Their mutual rights and obligations were governed by partnership deeds, the last of which was executed on 10.7.1984.
However, the appellant denied executing any such retirement deed.
It was alleged in the petition under Section 20 that disputes relating to payment of profits earned by the partnership firm and the interest on the said amount had arisen between the parties which called for adjudication by the arbitrator under Clause 11.
By an order dated 1.5.1996, the learned Single Judge hearing the arbitration petition referred the disputed deed of retirement for examination and opinion to the Central Forensic Science Laboratory CFSL .
In terms of Clause 11 of the said deed, disputes arising between the parties had to be resolved by way of arbitration before a sole arbitrator to be numberinated by the parties.
The appellant Sunder Kukreja filed a petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 praying for an appointment of an Arbitrator.
The said petition under Section 20 was opposed by the respondent herein who filed a written statement companytending that the petitioner has misrepresented the true facts and that there was numbersubsisting arbitration agreement between the parties in the light of the retirement deed dated 16.8.1990 allegedly executed by the petitioners by which the partnership between the parties stood dissolved and all claims stood companypletely satisfied.
The dispute in this case is between brothers.
The parties are real brothers and were carrying on business with each other in the name and style of M s. R. Kukreja and Company.
MARKANDEY KATJU, J. Leave granted.
This appeal by special leave has been filed against the impugned judgment dated 30.11.2007 of the Delhi High Court FAO OS No.469 of 2006.
In case, the parties cannot agree to a sole arbitrator, the matter will be decided in accordance with the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940.
Clause 11 reads as follows In the event of any dispute or disputes arising between the parties in the running of the partnership business or any matter relating to partnership it shall be referred to a sole arbitrator, agreed to in writing by the parties and the award given by the sole arbitrator shall be binding on all the parties.
