N. RADHAKRISHNAN versus M/S. MAESTRO ENGINEERS & ORS.

Citation: [2009] 15 S.C.R. 371 · Decided: 22-10-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: TARUN CHATTERJEE · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 5 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[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 F 
retirement of the appellant from the partnership firm and 
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 
8 
requirements u/s. 8 (2) of the Act had been complied with 
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 appe

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.