15 of the deed of partnership and 4 that in any event the umpire companyld number grant specific performance of the agreement.
All disputes and questions whatsoever which shall either during the partnership or afterwards arise between the partners or between one of them and the personal representatives of the other or between their respective personal representatives touching these presents or the interpretation of this deed or the companystruction of the application thereof or any clause or thing herein companytained or any account valuation or division of assets debts or liabilites to be made hereunder or as to any act deed or companymission of either partner or as to any act which ought to be done by the partners in dispute or as to any other matter in any way relating to the partnership business or the affairs and transactions thereof or the rights, duties or liabilities of either partner under these presents shall be referred to two Arbitrators one to be appointed by each party to the difference in accordance with and subject to the provisions of the Indian Arbitration Act, or any statutory modification thereof for the time being in force.
The net profits of the partnership after payment of all the outgoings incidental to the partnership business shall belong to the partners in equal shares and they shall likewise bear all losses including loss of capital.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment dated August 28, September 1, 1969 of the Bombay High Court in Award Petition No.
Disputes arose between the two partners.
The appellant denied the agreement set up by the respondent.
C. Chagla, F. S. Nariman, P. R. Nariman, P. R. Mridid and I. N. Shroff, for the respondent.
T. Desai, S. P. Bharucha, P. C. Bhartari, for the appellant.
15 of the partnership agreement had numberapplication 2 that the claim made by the respondent relating to the agreement dated January 17, 1968 was number a claim which arose out of the deed of partnership 3 that the dispute related to an agreement companyplete independent of the deed of partnership and companysequently it fell outside the ambit of the arbitration clause companytained in cl.
The petition was heard by Kantawala, J. Before the learned Judge four companytentions were raised in support of the petition 1 that the agreement dated January 17, 1968 as alleged by the respondent gave rise to new rights and obligations between the parties, and to a dispute relating to those rights and obligations created by the new agreement cl.
The duration of the partnership shall be at will.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeals No.
There was a reference to Mr. Mehta an Advocate of the High Court of Bombay as umpire to adjudicate the dispute.
On June 13, 1968 the respondent addressed a letter to the appellant setting out the terms of the oral agreement dated January 17, 1968 and intimated that having regard to the attitude adopted by the appellant there was numberalternative left but to have a legal arbitration, and that Mr. K. M. Diwanji Solicitor of the High Court of Bombay was numberinated an arbitrator by the respondent, and the appellant was called upon to numberinate his arbitrator so that the disputes and differences between the parties may be resolved by the partnership deed.
He simultaneously intimated that if the arbitrators seek to arbitrate on the issue of the alleged agreement of the appellant to go out of the firm, he would companytend that they had numberpower to do so.
This request was repeated in a letter dated June 14, 1968.
The appellant then submitted an application to the High Court of Bombay under s. 33 of the Arbitration Act praying a for a declaration that there was numberexisting arbitration agreement in regard to the dispute in petition as to whether or number the agreement was entered into between the parties on January 17, 1968 as stated in the statement of claim filed by the respondent before the arbitrators on October 8, 1969 b for a declaration that even if the deed of partnership companytained an arbitration agreement the dispute before the umpire fell outside the scope of the arbitration clause c for a declaration that the arbitration agreement, if any, relating to the said dispute was invalid and d for a declaration that the umpire had numberjurisdiction to enter upon an adjudication of the said dispute between the parties.
On December 22, 1966, the appellant and the respondent, who are brothers, entered into an agreement to carry on in partnership three businesses 1 Messrs F. D. Mehta Company 2 The Great Western Stores and 3 Dr. Writers Chocolates and Canning Company.
By his reply dated June 26, 1968 the appellant denied the agreement and without prejudice to his companytention numberinated Mr. J. B. Maneckji as arbitrator.
The arbitrators were unable to make an award within the period prescribed by the Arbitration Act.
2535 of 1969.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Shah, J. This appeal with special leave is filed against the judgment of a single Judge of the High Court of Bombay dismissing a petition under s. 33 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940.
The relevant terms of the deed of partnership were as follows The agreement has companye into effect from the 2nd day of November 1966.
With special leave, the appellant has appealed to this Court.
41 of 1969.
There were only two partners who agreed to carry on the business in partnership.
The learned Judge rejected all the companytentions and dismissed the petition.
