N. RADHAKRISHNAN v. MIS. MAESTRO ENGINEERS & Ors.

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 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] 0

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 ENGINEERS & ORS. 373 . ~-+ 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. 4