Holding

An arbitrator is not competent to decide the dispute as it involves serious allegations of fraud requiring detailed evidence and the original partnership deed was not filed, thereby failing the mandatory requirement of Section 8(2).

Summary

N. Radhakrishnan entered into a partnership with the respondents in 2003. A dispute arose when the respondents reconstituted the partnership after his alleged retirement, excluding him from the new deed, and he alleged fraud and misappropriation of funds. The respondents sued for a declaration that he was no longer a partner and for an injunction. Radhakrishnan applied under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of an arbitrator, but the trial court and the Madras High Court dismissed the application. The Supreme Court examined whether the matter fell within the arbitrator's jurisdiction and whether the procedural requirement of filing the original partnership deed under Section 8(2) was satisfied. The Court held that the dispute involved serious fraud allegations requiring detailed evidence, which an arbitrator is not empowered to handle, and that the original deed was not filed, breaching Section 8(2). Consequently, the appeal was dismissed and the suit was to be decided by the civil court.

Issues considered

Whether the dispute concerning the appellant's retirement and reconstitution of the partnership firm falls within the jurisdiction of an arbitrator under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
Whether the procedural requirement of filing the original partnership deed under Section 8(2) of the Act was complied with

Legislation cited

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996s. 8, s. 8(2)

Subjects

ArbitrationSection 8Partnership disputeRetirement of partnerFraud allegationsOriginal deed requirementJurisdiction of arbitratorInjunction

Judgment

[2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 371

N. RADHAKRISHNAN A
-;
v.
MIS. MAESTRO ENGINEERS & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 7019 of 2009)
OCTOBER 22, 2009
B
[TARUN ·CHATTERJEE AND V.S. S1RPURKAR, JJ.]

~ " Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - s. 8 - Application
under, for appointment of arbitrator - Partnership dispute
regarding retirement of appellant from partnership firm and c
its reconstitution after respondents created new partnership
deed without appellant being part of it - Allegations of fraud
and malpractices on part of respondents - Jurisdiction of
arbitrator to resolve the dispute - Held: Arbitrator is not
.... f.- competent to deal with such matter - Such matter can only D
be settled in court through furtherance of detailed evidence
by either parties - More so, original deed not filed in terms
with s. 8(2) - Thus, High Court justified in dismissing the
petition to refer the matter to arbitrator - Trial court directed
to dispose of the suit by respondents for declaration that E
appellant was not a partner of the reconstituted firm and to
prevent him from causing any disturbance.
~
Appellant entered into a partnership firm with the
respondent. Dispute arose with regard to the factum of
retirement of the appellant from the partnership firm and F
its reconstitution after the respondents had created a new
partnership deed without the appellant being a part of it.
Respondents filed a suit for a declaration that the
appellant is not a partner of the respondent no 1-firm after
his retirement, and to prevent him from causing any G
,. I disturbance to the respondent no 1-firm for its peaceful
running. Thereafter, the appellant filed an application ul
s. 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 and the '.
same was dismissed. Revision petition as also the
371 H
372 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A petition for stay was also dismissed.

The question which arose for consideration in this
appeal is whether the case falls within the jurisdiction of
the Arbitrator, and if it does, whether the procedural
requirements u/s. 8 (2) of the Act had been complied with
8
to the satisfaction of the court.

Dismissing the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1.1 In the instant case, the appellant had made
c serious allegations against the respondents alleging him
to commit malpractices in the account books and
manipulate the finances of the partnership firm, which
cannot be properly dealt with by the Arbitrator. Such
situation can only be settled in .the court through
0 furtherance of detailed evidence by either parties. As
such, the High Court was justified in dismissing the
petition of the appellant to refer the matter to an Arbitrator.
[Paras 7 and 13] [379-F-G; 382-C]

1.2. Even assuming that a dispute subsists and an
E Arbitrator is appointed, still the appellant cannot absolve
himself from the mandatory requirement of filing an
original copy of the deed. From a careful perusal of the
order of the 1st Addi. District Munsif Court in the I.A., it
would be evident that the Munsif had noted that the
F appellant had filed a Xerox copy of the partnership deed
and had not filed the original copy thereof. Further, the
exhibit is the notarized copy of the Partnership_deed,
which was the reconstituted deed formed after the
alleged retirement of the appellant from the firm. The
G counsel for the appellant argued that since the original
copy of the deed was filed by the respondents, there was
no need for him to file the original copy thereof under
section 8 (2) of the Act. But it is to be noted that the claim
of the appellant regarding the dispute was under the
H arbitration clause mentioned U!lder the original
I

N. RADHAKRISHNAN v. MIS. MAESTRO 373
ENGINEERS & ORS.
partnership deed and not on the subsequent one. Since A
. ~-+ the original deed was not filed within the requirement of
section 8(2) of the Act, it must be held that the mandatory
requirement under the Act had not been complied with.
Accordingly, even if the factum of a dispute relating to the
retirement of the appellant under the original deed is 8
accepted, still the Court would not be empowered to refer
the matter to an Arbitrator due to the non-compliance of
the provisions mentioned under section 8(2) of the Act.
~ ~
Therefore, there is no merit in the appeal and the 1st Addi.
District Munsif is directed to dispose of the suit filed by c
the respondents for a declaration that the appellant was
not a partner of the respondent no 1-firm after his
retirement and to prevent him from causing any
disturbance to the respondent no 1 for its peaceful
.. ;._
running by way of a permanent injunction. [Paras 14 and D
15] [383-A-H; 384-A-B]
Abdul Kadir Shamsuddin Bubere vs. Madhav Prabhakar
Oak and Anr. AIR 1962 SC 406, relied on.

Oomor Sait HG vs: Asiam Sait, 2001 (3) CTC 269, E
approved.

Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. vs. Pinkcity Midway
4
y Petroleums 2003 (6) SCC 503; Haryana Telecom Ltd. vs.
Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd. AIR 1999 SC 2354, referred to.
F
Case Law Reference:
2003 (6) sec 503 Referred to. Para 8
-.ll AIR 1962 SC 406 Relied on. Para 10
G
AIR 1999 SC 2354 Referred to. Para 11
f
2001 (3) CTC 269 Approved. Para 12
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
...
-t
7019 of 2009. H
374 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A From the Judgment & Order dated 8.1.2007 of the High
Court of Judicature at Madras in CRP (PD) No. 1246 of 2006., ~~ .
KV, Viswanathan, B. Raghunath. Vijay Kumar, Anup
Kumar, Avishek Kaushik for the Appellant.
B Shyam Divan, Ravi Krishnan, P.V, Yogeswaran, Dr, R.N,
Upadhya for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
)< ~

TARUN CHATTERJEE, J. 1, Leave granted,
c
2, This appeal is directed against the final judgment and
order dated, 8th of January, 2007, of the High court of
Judicature at Madras in CRP No 1246 of 2006, whereby the
High Court had dismissed the Civil Revision Petition filed by
D the appellant against the order dated 7th of June, 2006 passed
>; ....
in LA. No. 494 of 2006 (in O.S, No, 526 of 2006) by the 1st
Addi. District Munsif at Coimbatore, wherein the appellant had
prayed for appointment of an Arbitrator.

E 3, The facts leading to the filing of this appeal which could
be derived from the case made out by the appellants are
summarized in a nutshell for the better understanding of the
dispute at hand:
'I' •
The appellant had entered into a partnership with the
F respondents on 7th of April, 2003 to constitute a partnership
firm for the purpose of carrying on the business of Engineering
Works under the name and style of "Maestro Engineers". The
abovementioned firm had initially commenced its functioning
from the premises situated at 41, KPR Lay Out 5th Street,
G Nanda Nagar Singanallur, Coimbatore-5, (in short the "suit
premises"), which belonged to the father of the appellant. The
appellant took active part in setting up the firm and was t
instrumental for the ~onstruction of the same,

Differences started creeping up between the appellant and
H
N. RADHAKRISHNAN v. MIS. MAESTRO ENGINEERS 375
& O~S. [TARUN CHATTERJEE, J.]
~

the respondents and the appellant sent a notice dated 3rd of A
November, 2005, to the respondents, being dissatisfied with
-i
their conduct. The appellant had asserted in the notice that the
firm was set up by a partnership deed dated 7th of April, 2003
and that he and the respondent no 3 had initially invested a sum
of Rs.2,70,000/-, each for the capital investment of the firm but B
in the partnership deed it was only mentioned as Rs.1,00,000/
- against the name of the appellant. He had further asserted
malpractices happening inside the firm, which were supported
. . by the respondents. There were also allegations of collusion
amongst the respondents for driving out the clients of the c
appellant and forging the accounts of the firm. The appellant
also offered his retirement from the firm and asked for his share
of the salary and the profits incurred by the firm.

In response to the notice sent by the appellant, the
respondents sent a reply dated 11th of November, 2003, D
._ A
wherein they admitted the factum of the partnership entered into
by them with the appellant but allegedly denied the claim of the
appellant that he had invested a sum of Rs.2,70,000/- towards
the establishment of the firm.
E
In response to the reply sent by the respondents, the
appellant sent a notice dated 1st of December, 2005, wherein
he again reiterated his stand that he had invested a sum of
_,,. y
Rs.2,70,000/- for the establishment of the firm and not an
amount of Rs.2,50,000/- as was alleged by the respondents in F
their reply.

The appellant, thereafter, sent another notice dated 24th
of February, 2006, to the respondents stating that the
respondents were responsible for the problems created by the
parties and it was their responsibility to resolve the disputes G
amicably between them. It was alleged that the respondents
' ~-1 had colluded themselves in order to siphon of the money of the
partnership firm for their personal gain. In the notice dated 3rd
of November, 2005, the appellant had reiterated that he was
ready to retire from the firm if the share of profits and arrears H
I
376 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009) 15 (ADDL.) $.C.R.

A of salary due to him and the interest thereon was given to him.
He had further called upon the respondents to settle the arrears
of amount within 15 days and to make arrangements for his ~-
retirement failing which he had put them on notice to .refer the·
matter to arbitration.
8
The respondents subsequently filed a suit being O.S. No.
526 of 2006, under Order 7 Rule 1 of CPC before the Court of
the District Munsif of Coimbatore for a declaration that the
appellant is not a partner of the Respondent No 1 (the firm
herein) after 18th of November, 2005, and to prevent him from )<' ~
c causing any disturbance to the respondent no 1 for its peaceful
running by way of a permanent injunction.
The appellant thereafter filed an application under Section
8 of the Arbitration Act 1996, (hereinafter referred to as the
D "Act") being l.A.No.494. of 2006 in the Court of the District
Munsif at Coimbatore on 12th of March 2006, which was )\ ...
rejected by his order dated 7th of June, 2006. Feeling
aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the appellant filed a civil
revision case being CRP(PD) No. 1246 of 2006 along with a
E petition for stay being M.P. No. 1 of 2006 in the High Court of
Judicature at Madras. The High Court by its order dated 8th
Of January, 2007, affirmed the aforesaid order of the District
Munsif at Coimbatore and dismissed the civil revision petition
and also the petition for stay filed by the appellant. It is against
"
..
F this order of the High Court in respect of which the instant
special leave petition was filed by the appellant, which on grant
of leave was heard by us in the presence of the learned counsel
for the parties.
4. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the
G parties and perused the materials on record. The learned
counsel appearing for the appellant at the first instance
contended that the dispute was relatable to the factum of
t··
retirement of the appellant from the partnership firm and its
reconstitution after the respondents had created a new
H partnership deed to that effect without the appellant being a part
N. RADHAKRISHNAN v. MIS. MAESTRO ENGINEERS 377
& ORS. [TARUN CHATTERJEE, J.]
of it, was unfair and not proper. It was his contention that the A
appellant had only made a conditional offer to retire from the
-1 firm provided his dues were settled and the responden.ts had
.i. grossly made a willful error in considering his offer as a final
one and, therefore, committed a grave error by reconstituting
the partnership firm after taking the appellant to have retired B
.. from the same. The learned counsel appearing for the
respondents on the other hand contended that the offer of the
appellant to retire from the firm was an unequivocal one and
the same was accepted by the respondents after a meeting
• ••
amongst themselves, thus under the provisions of the Indian c
Contract Act, this was a binding contract amongst the parties
and the respo11dent could not deny the same. Moreover, the
learnea counsel for the respondents argued that they had sent
a notice to the effect to the appellant stating that his offer to
retire from the firm was accepted by them and his dues would
D
,., ,._ be settled accordingly within 15 days from the receipt of the
notice dated 3rd of March, 2005 sent by the appellant intimating
about his retirement. Therefore, the appellant had prior
'·
knowledge of the fact that the respondents had accepted his
notice offering to retire and they were acting upon the same.
The appellant on the other hand contended that the respondents E
had only claimed to act which in reality they did not, and no
cooperation was provided to the appellant when he had
approached the Auditor of the respondents to inspect his
4
" accounts. We are not in a position to determine the veracity of

- '
the statements of either parties. The main issues which need F
to be determined is whether the case falls within the jurisdiction
of the Arbitrator, and if it does, whether the procedural
requirements under Section 8 (2) of the Act had been complied
with to the satisfaction of the court.
G
5. The learned counsel for the respondents further argued
that the subject matter of the suit being OS No. 526 of 2006
~1 was a different one and it was not within the ambit of the
llllJI""
arbitration clause of the partnership deed dated 7th of April,
2003 and that the partnership deed had ceased to exist after
H
378 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2~09]
s+ .
i's (,A.bDL'.f;S.C.·R, "
·. ·'
...
·'./,;

A the .firm was reconstituted due to the alleged retirement of the··
appellant. Therefore, the trial court was justified in not referring
the matter to the Arbitrator. The appellankhad on the other hand
contended that the subject matter of the suit was within the ambit ·
of the arbitration clau$e sine~ according :to. him tMe dispute• •
8 related to his r~tirement afld .tht? settlement of his does affer
he was deemed to, have ret,ired according t~:>the-respondent~>'.
Further,, it was.his contention that the·partnership deed dated ...
6th.of December, 2005 was not a valid one as· it: was riot · ·
framed in compliance with the requirements· under· the:
Partnership Act. Therefore, the argument of the responaents
C that the subject matter of the suit did not fall within th.~ arilbit of
the arbitration clause of the original partnership deed dated 7th
of Ap~il~ 2003, cannot be sustained. We are in agr.eement with
the contention of the appellant to this effect It is cl'ea'r from a
perusal of the documents that there was a clear dispute
D regarding .the reconstitution of the partnership 'firm and the
subsequent deed framed to that effect. The dispute'Was relating · -li
to the continuation of the appellant as a partner of the fir.J1l, and ·:
especi~lly when the respondents prayed for a declaration to the
effect that the appellant had ceased to be a partner of the firm
E after- his retirement; there is no do4bt in our mind that the
dispute squcfrely fell within th.e purview· of the arbitration ~clause
of the partnership deed dated 7th of April,.2003. Therefore, the
Arbitrator '!'Vas competent to decide the matter relating· to the
to
existerwe of the original deed and its validity th.at effect. Ttius . ·~
F the conteritior.i that'the subject matterof the suit before the 1st · ·
Addi. District Munsif Court at Coimbatore was beyond the
purview of the arbitration clause, cannot be accepted. Having
found that the subject matter of the suit was within the
jurisdiction of the Arbitrator, we now proceed to decide whether
G the Arbitrator was competent to deal with the dispute raised
by the parties. The learned counsel for the appellant contended
that the High Court was wrong in its interpretation of the clause t~
"difference of opinion" and held that it did not mean dispute
under the Act. This, in our view, cannot be sustained. Difference
H of opinion leads tQ dispute, and it is very difficult to imagine
N. RADHAKRISHNAN v. M/S. MAESTRO 379
ENGINEERS & ORS. [TARUN CHATTERJEE, J.]
that difference of opinion and disputes are an altogether different A
-:1 thing in the circumstances leading to this case.

6. The appellant had cited a catena of judicial
pronouncements to contend that when there is an express
provision to that effect, the civil courts are bound to refer the B
matter to an Arbitrator in case of any disputes arising between
the parties. The appellant had raised various issues relating to
misappropriation of funds and malpractices on the part of the
•• respondents and the allegations to that effect have been made
in the notice sent to the respondents and subsequently in its
written statement filed before the civil court. The learned counsel
c
for the respondents on the other hand argued that when a case
involves substantial questions relating to facts where detailed
material evidence (both documentary and oral) needed to be
produced by either parties, and serious allegations pertaining
!I> J.. to fraud and malpractices were raised, then the matter must be D
tried in court and the Arbitrator could not be competent to deal
with such matters which involved an elaborate production of
evidence to establish the claims relating to fraud and criminal
misappropriation.
E
7. In our opinion, the contention of the respondents relating
to the jurisdiction of the Arbitrator to decide a dispute pertaining
to a matter of this proportion should be upheld, in view of the
• ¥ facts and circumstances of the case. The High Court in its
impugned judgment has rightly held that since the case. relates F
J to allegations of fraud and serious malpractices on the part of
the respondents, such a situation can only be settled in court
through furtherance of detailed evidence by either parties and
such a situation can not be properly gone into by the Arbitrator.

8. Reliance was placed by the learned counsel for the G
appellant on a decision of this Court in the case of Hindustan
~ J
Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. vs. Pinkcity Midway Petroleums [2003
(6) SCC 503], wherein this Court in Para 14 observed:

"If in an agreement between the parties before the civil H
380 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A court, there is a clause for arbitration, it is mandatory for
the civil court to refer the dispute to an arbitrator. In the Ir-
instant case the existence of an arbitral clause in the
Agreement is accepted by both the parties as also by the
courts below. Therefore, in view of the mandatory language
B . of section 8 of the Act, the courts below ought to have
referred the.dispute to arbitration."
9. The learned counsel for the appellant relying ·on the
above-mentioned observations of this Court in the aforesaid ~ ..
judgment submitted that the High Court was wrong in ignoring
c the ratio of the case and should have accordingly allowed the
petition of the appellant for setting aside the order of the trial
court.
10. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
0 respondents on the other hand contended that the appellant had
made serious allegations against the respondent alleging that "" _.
they had manipulated the accounts and defrauded the appellant
by cheating the appellant of his dues, thereby warning the
respondents with serious criminal action against them for the
E alleged commission of criminal offences. In this connection,
reliance was placed in a decision of this Court in the case of
Abdul Kadir Shamsuddin Bubere vs. Madhav Prabhakar Oak
and Another, [AIR 1962 SC 406) in which this court under para
17 held as under: .. ~

F "There is no doubt that where serious allegations of fraud "-
are made .against a party and the party who is charged
with fraud desires that the matter should be tried in open ,,,
court, that would be a sufficient cause for the court not to
order an arbitration agreement to be filed and not to make
G the reference ....... "
11. In our view and relying on the aforesaid observations \r ~

of this Court in the aforesaid decision and going by the ratio
of the above mentioned case, the facts of the present case
H
N. RADHAKRISHNAN v. MIS. MAESTRO ENGINEERS 381
& ORS. [TARUN CHATIERJEE, J.]
does not warrant the matter to be tried and decided by the A
-f
Arbitrator, rather for the furtherance of justice, it should be tried
in a court of law which would be more competent and have the
means to decide such a complicated matter involving various
questions and issues raised in the present dispute. This view
has been further enunciated and affirmed by this Court in the B
decision of Haryana Telecom Ltd. vs. Sterlite Industries (India)
Ltd. [AIR 1999 SC 2354], wherein this court unde.r para 4
t y
observed:

"Sub-section (1) of section 8 provides that where the
judicial authority before whom an action is brought in a
c
matter, will refer the parties to arbitration the said matter
in accordance with the arbitration agreement. This,
however, postulates, in our opinion, that what can be
re·(erred to the Arbitrator is only that dispute or matter which
.. i,._
t.he Arbitrator is competent or empowered to decide." D
1

12. The learned counsel for the respondent further
elaborated his contention citing the decision of the High Court
of Judicature at Madras in the case of Oomor Sait HG vs.
Asiam Sait, 2001 (3) CTC 269, wherein it was held: E
" ..... .Power of civil court to refuse to stay of suit in view
of arbitration clause on existence of certain grounds
·~ ~
available under 1940 Act continues to be available under
1996 Act as well and the civil court is not prevented from
proceeding with the suit despite an arbitration clause if F
dispute involves serious questions of law or complicated
~ questions of fact adjudication of which would depend
upon detailed oral and documentary evidence.

..Civil Court can refuse to refer matter to arbitration if G
complicated question of fact or law is involved or where
·-" allegation of fraud is made .

. . . .Allegations regarding clandestine operation of business
under some other name, issue of bogus bills,
H
382 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009) 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A manipulation of accounts, carrying on similar business
without consent of other partner are serious allegations of
fraud, misrepresentations etc., and therefore application
for reference to Arbitrator is liable to be rejected."

13. We are in consonance with the above-referred decision
8
made by the High.Court in the concerned matter. In the present
dispute faced by us, the appellant had.made serious allegations
against the respondents alleging him to commit malpractices
in t~e account books and manipulate the finances of the . . ·•
C partnership firm, which, in our opinion, cannot be properly dealt
with by the Arbitrator. As such·, the High; Court was justifie~d in
dismissing the petition of the appellant to refer the matter to an
Arbitrator. In this connection, it is relevant to refer the
e~ observation.made by the High Court in its impugned judgment

D ,.,i.,.

. "The above decision squarely applies to the facts of the
present case. In the present case as well there is allegation
of running rival firm, interference with the smt:>oth
administration of the firm. As already stated since the suit
E has been filed for declaration to declare that the revision
petitioner is not a partner with effect from 18.11.2005, and

F
for consequential injunction restraining the petitioner from
disturbing the smooth functioning of the first respondent
firm, the issue relates to the causes which compelled the
respondents to expel the revision petitioner from the
.- ..
partnership firm and the necessity to reconstitute the firm
by entering into a fresh partnership deed. Therefore such
issues involve detailed evidence which could be done only
by a civil court ...... "

G 14. Arguments were favoured by either parties relating to
the ambit of Section 8 (2) of the Act wherein the scope of the
mandatory requirement to file the original copy of the
partnership deed dated 7th of April, 2003 was elaborately
discussed. It is to be noted that since we have already decided
H that° there is ho requirement to appoint an Arbitrator in view of
N. RAOHAKRISHNAN v. MIS. MAESTRO ENGINEERS 383
& ORS. [TARUN CHATTERJEE, J.]

-f the matter that the issues involved in the case involved detailed A
investigations into the same and production of elaborate
evidence to prove the allegations or refute the same, there is
no need to dwell into this matter. Even assuming that a dispute
subsists and an Arbitrator is appointed, still the appellant
cannot absolve himself from the mandatory requirement of filing B
an original copy of the deed. The learned counsel for the
appellant, however, argued that since the notarized copy of the
# .. deed was already filed by the respondents before the 1st Addi.
District Munsif Court at Coimbatore, there was no need for the
appellant to produce the same, Learned counsel for the c
appellant cited various decisions to substantiate his claim. But
from a careful perusal of the order of the 1st Addi. District

.
Munsif Court at Coimbatore, in_ I.A. No. 494 of 2006 (in O.S.
No. 526 of 2006) it would be evident that the learned Munsif
._ had noted that the appellant had filed a Xerox copy of the
D
partnership deed dated 7th of April 2003 and had not filed the
original copy thereof. Further, Ex-P23 is the notarized copy of
the Partnership deed dated 6th of December, 2005, which was
the· reconstituted deed formed after the alleged retirement of
the appellant from the fimi. The learned counsel for the appellant
pointed out to this deed and argued that since the original copy E
of this deed was filed by the respondents, there was no need
for him to file the original copy thereof under section 8 (2) of
~
• the Act. But it is to be noted herein that the claim of the
: "'"
appellant regarding the dispute was under the arbitration clause
mentioned under the original partnership deed and not on the F
subsequent one. ·Since the original deed was not filed within
the requirement of Section 8(2) of the Act, it must be held that
the mandatory requirement under the Act had not been
complied with. Accordingly, even if we accept the factum of a
dispute relating to the retirement of the appellant under the G

.-." original deed dated 7th of April, 2003, still the Court would not
be empowered to refer the matter to an Arbitrator due to the
• non compliance of the provisions mentioned under Section 8(2)
of the Act. For the above-mentioned reasons and in view of
our discussions made hereinabove, we, therefore, do not find H
384 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009) 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A any merit in this appeal and we direct the 1st Addi. District ~
Munsif at Coimbatore to dispose of the suit being O.S.No.526
· of 2006. filed by the respondents for a declaration that the
appellant was not a partner of the Respondent No 1 (the firm
herein) after 18th of November, 2005 and to prevent him from ,,
e causing any disturbance to the respondent no 1 for its peaceful
running by way of a permanent injunction within a period of six I--
months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
15. It will be open to the parties to adduce evidence (both
C documentary and oral) to prove their respective claims relating
to the contentions of fraud and the retirement of the appellant
in consonance with the original partnership agreement.
16. The appeal is thus dismissed. There will be no order
as to costs.
0
N.J. Appeal dismissed.

...
'