High Court of Karnataka Allows Petition for Appointment of Arbitrator in Partnership Dispute — Unregistered Firm's Petition Under Section 11(6) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Held Maintainable Despite Bar Under Section 69 of Partnership Act, 1932. The court clarified that the bar under Section 69 of the Partnership Act does not apply to applications under the Arbitration Act as the right to seek appointment of an arbitrator arises from the arbitration agreement, not from the partnership deed.

High Court: Karnataka High Court Bench: BENGALURU In Favour of Prosecution
  • 26
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioners, M/s. Sri Vishal Bhavan (an unregistered partnership firm) and its partner H.N. Jayaprakash, filed a petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking appointment of an arbitrator to resolve disputes arising from a partnership agreement dated 01.04.1994. The respondent, H.N. Jayashankar, opposed the petition primarily on the ground that the firm being unregistered, the petition was barred under Section 69 of the Partnership Act, 1932. The court admitted the petition and heard it finally with consent. The core legal issue was whether an unregistered partnership firm can maintain a petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act. The court analyzed the scope of Section 69 of the Partnership Act, which prohibits unregistered firms from enforcing rights arising from a contract in a suit. However, the court held that the right to seek appointment of an arbitrator stems from the arbitration agreement contained in the partnership deed, not from the partnership itself. The bar under Section 69 applies only to suits or proceedings to enforce rights under the partnership deed, not to applications under the Arbitration Act. The court relied on the principle that arbitration proceedings are distinct and the arbitration agreement is separable. Consequently, the court allowed the petition and appointed an arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties.

Headnote

A) Arbitration Law - Appointment of Arbitrator - Section 11(6) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Maintainability of Petition by Unregistered Firm - The court considered whether an unregistered partnership firm can file a petition under Section 11(6) for appointment of an arbitrator. Held that the bar under Section 69 of the Partnership Act, 1932 does not apply to proceedings under the Arbitration Act as the right to seek appointment of an arbitrator arises from the arbitration agreement, not from the partnership deed. The petition is maintainable. (Paras 4-6)

B) Partnership Law - Unregistered Firm - Section 69 of Partnership Act, 1932 - Bar on Enforcement of Rights - The court examined the scope of Section 69 which bars unregistered firms from enforcing rights arising from a contract. Held that the bar applies only to suits or proceedings to enforce rights under the partnership deed, but not to applications under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act which are based on the arbitration agreement. (Paras 5-6)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether an unregistered partnership firm can maintain a petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of an arbitrator.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The court allowed the petition and appointed an arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties.

Law Points

  • Section 11(6) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act
  • 1996
  • Appointment of arbitrator
  • Existence of arbitration agreement
  • Partnership Act
  • 1932
  • Unregistered firm
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2019 LawText (KAR) (02) 10

C.M.P. No.43 of 2016

2019-02-01

Alok Aradhe

Sunil S. Rao for petitioners, B.S. Aravinda Babu for respondent

M/s. Sri Vishal Bhavan (Unregistered Partnership Firm) and H.N. Jayaprakash

H.N. Jayashankar

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Civil miscellaneous petition under Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of an arbitrator.

Remedy Sought

Petitioners sought appointment of an arbitrator to resolve disputes under the partnership agreement dated 01.04.1994.

Filing Reason

Disputes arose between partners of an unregistered partnership firm, and the petitioners invoked the arbitration clause in the partnership deed.

Issues

Whether an unregistered partnership firm can maintain a petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of an arbitrator.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioners argued that the arbitration clause in the partnership deed entitles them to seek appointment of an arbitrator. Respondent contended that the petition is barred under Section 69 of the Partnership Act, 1932 as the firm is unregistered.

Ratio Decidendi

The bar under Section 69 of the Partnership Act, 1932 does not apply to applications under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 because the right to seek appointment of an arbitrator arises from the arbitration agreement, which is independent of the partnership deed. An unregistered firm can maintain such a petition.

Judgment Excerpts

The writ petition is admitted for hearing. With consent of the parties, the same is heard finally. In this petition under Section 11(6) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ... the petitioners seek appointment of an arbitrator.

Procedural History

The petition was filed under Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. It was admitted and heard finally with consent of parties on 01.02.2019.

Acts & Sections

  • Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: 11(5), 11(6)
  • Partnership Act, 1932: 69
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Karnataka Allows Petition for Appointment of Arbitrator in Partnership Dispute — Unregistered Firm's Petition Under Section 11(6) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Held Maintainable Despite Bar Under Section 69 of Partnership ...
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Karnataka Allows Appeal in Money Recovery Suit — Admission of Liability in Written Statement Constitutes Acknowledgment Under Section 18 of Limitation Act, 1963. Suit for Recovery of Money Based on Supply of Goods Held Not Time-Barred...