2 was allotted to M. Prakashchandra Bhakta.
5 of 2014 filed by the appellants plaintiffs.
M.Prakashchandra Bhakta died on 20.03.1995 and as per his Will, his minor son Master M. Vinayaka Bhakta was admitted to the partnership as per partnership deed dated 21.03.1995.
5 of 2014 have referred to and admitted the retirement deed dated 25.07.2005 and partnership deed dated 05.04.2006 in para 5 of the plaint.
5 and M. Vipin Bhakta S o late M. Ganesh Bhakta and Master M. Anantesh Bhakta,1st Plaintiff.
IV under Section 8 1 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 hereinafter referred to as Act on 09.05.2014, praying to pass an order referring the parties to the arbitration for adjudication of the disputes raised by the Plaintiff in the Suit.
5 were parties to the arbitration agreement either personally or claiming through the person who was party to the agreement.
Parties to the suit were referred to the arbitration to settle the dispute as per arbitration agreement.
The parties to the suit are referred to the Arbitration to settle their disputes and differences, in view of the Arbitration Agreement.
Hence, dispute companyld number have been refereed to the arbitrator.
Usha A. Bhakta is a party to the Retirement Deed and plaintiffs 2 and 3 are claiming their rights through one of the partner late Shri Gangadhar Bhakta, who was also a party to the Retirement Deed.
M.Gangadhar Bhakta expired and his estate is represented by the Plaintiff Nos.
The High Court wide impugned judgment has affirmed the order of Trial Court with observation that parties can press for an early trial.
The plaintiffs themselves have filed the photocopies of deed of retirement dated 25.07.2005 as the document number 6 in the list and photocopies of partnership deed dated 05.042006 as document number 7 as have been numbered in para 23 of the District Judge judgment.
The suit for partition was filed by M. Prakaschandra Bhakta and others against M. Subhaschandra Bhakta and others, being O.S. NO.
It is submitted that there was clear arbitration agreement in the retirement deed as well as in the partnership deed as has been numbered by District Judge and the suit companyld number have proceeded.
Mere presence of Defendant No.6 as one of the Defendants does number preclude the implementation of arbitration agreement.
IV was number liable to be rejected on this ground.
Plaintiff No.
In the above case, defendant had moved a petition on 28.02.2005 praying for referring the dispute to arbitration.
A Suit No.
IV of 2014, two submissions have been raised.
The Defendant No.
On 06.03.1997, Subhaschandra Bhakta died and his LRs, namely Defendant Nos.
Further, although initially the application filed by Defendant A.No.
1 to 4 and Defendant No.
Learned Counsel appearing for appellants in support of this appeal raised following submissions The application I.A.No.
Hence, the application I.A.No.
4 of 1985.
Aggrieved against the judgment of High Court, the appellants plaintiffs have filed this appeal.
As per the companypromise decree, Item No.
5 of 2014 was filed by three Plaintiffs appellants against six Defendants who are Respondent Nos.
IV was filed by the defendants on 09.05.2014.
The Defendant on 12.05.2014 filed the original retirement deed and partnership deed along with the list.
IV filed on 09.05.2014, original or certified companyy of the Retirement Deed and Partnership Deed was number filed.
They submit that admittedly with the application I.A.No.
219 of 2014.
According to Section 8 2 of the Act, it is mandatory to file the original arbitration agreement or a duly certified companyy thereof along with the application seeking reference to the arbitration.
1 of A schedule property was allotted to M. Subhaschandra Bhakta and Item No.
The preliminary decree was passed on 31.07.1986.
The mother of plaintiff namely Smt.
In the Suit, I.A. No.
The Civil Revision was filed by the appellants against the judgment and order dated 27th May, 2014 of vacation District Judge, Mangalore in Original Suit No.
With regard to number filing of retirement deed and partnership deed along with application I.A.No.
1 to 4 became partners.
Firstly, the plaintiffs in their plaint of O.S.No.
The Defendant had filed I.A.No.
Trial Court has returned the findings that the plaintiff number 1 represented by his mother and next friend was party to the Retirement Deed.
IV of 2014 had filed the original retirement deed and partnership deed on 12.05.2014 and at the time the matter was companysidered by District Judge, original deeds were on the record.
M. Subhaschandra Bhakta and others filed FDP No.
Ashok Bhakta died on 18.09.2001.
IV filed under Section 8 1 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 by the defendants is allowed.
The Learned District Judge heard the I.A.No.
The brief facts necessary to be numbered for deciding this appeal are Late Ramabhakta had started a business of manufacture and sales of Beedi under the name M s Neo Subhash Beedi Works.
The suit of the plaintiffs stands disposed off accordingly.
1 to 4 were stated to have retired from partnership.
IV was filed by the defendants respondents under Section 8 1 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, relying on arbitration agreement in retirement deed dated 25.07.2005 hereinafter referred to as retirement deed as well as in the partnership deed dated 05.04.2006 hereinafter referred to as partnership deed .
There is numbersuch provision which prohibits the adjudication of dispute by arbitration regarding an unregistered partnership firm.
Firstly, it is companytended that the Plaintiff themselves has filed both retirement deed and partnership deed along with the list of documents and having admitted both retirement deed and partnership deed, number filing along with the application I.A.No.
The Revision Petition was disposed of accordingly.
6 has number inherited any right in the partnership firm and was unnecessarily impleaded by the Plaintiff.
IV was also filed by the Plaintiff.
ASHOK BHUSHAN, J. Leave granted.
The firm being an unregistered firm, numberreference to the arbitration can be made with regard to the dispute relating to unregistered firm.
After his demise, his six sons, namely, late M. Narasimha Bhakta, late M. Subhaschandra Bhakta, late M. Prakashchandra Bhakta, late M. Ganesh Bhakta, late M. Gangadhar Bhakta and late M. Ashok Bhakta, companystituted the partnership firm.
All the Plaintiffs as well as Defendant Nos.
Sunil Kumar Singh Others.
Further, the permanent prohibitory injunction was sought against the Defendant regarding possession and enjoyment of property by Plaintiff.
On 12.05.2014 the original Retirement Deed and the Partnership Deed were produced by the defendants along with the list.
Secondly, the Defendant themselves immediately after three days of filing their I.A.No.
In paragraph 23 of the judgment, Learned District Judge had returned the following findings therefore, the plaintiff number 1 represented by his mother and next friend Smt.
The first plaintiff is son of late Ashok Bhakta.
The application was number accompanied by retirement deed and partnership deed.
M. Narsimha Bhakta retired from the firm as per the release deed dated 30.06.1986 and the remaining partners companytinued with the firm.
1 to 6 in this appeal praying for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the Defendants or anyone claiming through them for transferring or alienating A schedule property.
1 Two facts which emerged from record in this respect need to be numbered.
The Defendants 1 to 5 are also the parties to this Retirement Deed.
Both 5th and 6th defendants are issues of late M. Prakashchandra Bhakta.
This appeal has been filed against judgment dated 08.07.2014 of High Court of Karnataka in Civil Revision No.
On 12.05.2014, the original retirement deed and the partnership deed were produced by the Defendant along with the list.
On 25.07.2005, retirement deed was executed in which Defendant Nos.
IV dated 09.05.2014 was number accompanied by companyy of retirement deed and partnership deed.
2 and 3 claiming their rights through one of the partners Shri Gangadhar Bhakta, their father, who was party to the retirement deed.
Usha A. Bhakta has signed the retirement deed for self and on behalf of her minor children, the plaintiff No.
24 of 1992 for preparation of final decree in which the companypromise petition dated 04.04.1994 was filed and companypromise decree was passed on 05.04.1994.
Learned District Judge has allowed the application filed by the defendant under Section 8 1 of 1996 Act.
IV was inconsequential.
The companynter affidavit to the application I.A. No.
IV of 2014 praying for referring the matter to arbitration was number accompanied by the original retirement deed dated 25.07.2005 and partnership deed dated 05.04.2006, hence the application was liable to be dismissed under Section 8 2 and Learned District Judge companymitted error in allowing the application.
IV as well as the objections raised by the Plaintiff and by an order dated 27.05.2014, pass the following order A.No.
All the parties to the suit were number parties to the arbitration agreement as claimed in retirement deed and partnership deed.
Similar agreement to sell dated 19.04.1993 was also executed by M.Subhaschandra Bhakta in favour of firm.
An agreement to sale dated 19.04.1993 was executed by M. Prakashchandra Bhakta in favour of partnership firm.
The partnership deed dated 05.04.2006 was entered between late M. Gangadhar Bhakta, M. Vinayaka Bhakta, Defendant No.
