As per the Deed of Partnership dated 1.4.2010, the applicants and the non-applicant Nos. 1 and 2 agreed to refer any dispute amongst the partners with regard to interpretation of the said deed or any other matter connected with the business of partnership to the sole arbitrator. In this context, if the plaint is perused, it can be seen that it is the case of the plaintiffs that defendant Nos. 2 to 6 by acting inappropriately had deleted the names of the plaintiffs from the revenue record pertaining to the suit property and had thereafter with the aid of defendant No. 10, had sold the suit properties to defendant Nos. 7 to 9. The relief sought was cancellation of these sale deeds executed in favour of defendant Nos. 7 to 9 dated 16.3.2016. Defendants No. 7 to 10 are not partners of the partnership firm nor are they signatories to any agreement by which any dispute amongst them could be referred for arbitration. The relief sought with regard to the cancellation of sale deeds executed in favour of defendant Nos. 7 to 9 who were strangers to the Deed of Partnership was thus non-arbitrable.
9. For the purposes of applicability of Section 8 of the said Act, it is well-settled that such agreement containing the arbitration clause should be between parties to the dispute and that such agreement should relate to or be applicable to the dispute - Yogi Agrawal (supra). Similarly, the words "a matter" appearing in Section 8 of the said Act would mean the entire subject-matter of the suit which should be the subject of arbitration. The suit cannot be bifurcated into two parts so as to refer some part to the arbitrator for adjudication and the other part to be decided by the civil court" - Sukanya Holdings (P) Ltd. (supra).
10. In the light of aforesaid law, on considering the plaint as a whole along with clause 15 of the Deed of Partnership dated 1.4.2010, I do not find that the trial Court committed any error when it rejected the application moved by the defendant Nos. 1 to 6 under Section 8 of the said Act. Considering the reliefs sought in the plaint, the ratio of the decisions in the case of Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. and Ravi Prakash Goel (supra) cannot be made applicable to the case in hand. Though in Agri Gold Exims Ltd. (supra), it has been held that the expression "any dispute" in Section 8 of the said Act are of wide amplitude, it cannot be construed in such a matter so as to cover a dispute even against non-parties to the arbitration agreement.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (NAGPUR BENCH)
Civil Revision Application No. 99 of 2016
Decided On: 16.02.2017
Ramdeobaba Padmavati Developers & Builders and Ors. Vs.
Ganesh Vitthaldas Chandak and Ors.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
A.S. Chandurkar, J.
Citation: 2017(5) MHLJ 357
Print Page
