M/S Kolmet Enterprises & Others v. Surjit Singh Kohli & Others

ORDER o/o

03.11.20L1 r.A.NO.16336/20r.1.

¶1This is an application filed by the petitioners seeking clarification of the order dated 16.8.2011, by which, while appointing the Arbitrator this Court had directed that Arbitrator would conduct the proceedings as per Rules of Delhi High Court Arbitration Centre and his fee would also be paid by the parties equally as per Delhi High Court Arbitration Schedule. 'e

¶2lt is clarified that Arbitration would be conducted under the aegis of Delhi High Court Arbitration Centre and its Rules and the parties will appear before Delhi High Court Arbitration Centre on 22.11.2011 at

4.00 p.m.

¶3Application stands disposed of.

¶4Let a copy of this order be given DASTI to counsel for the parties to enable them to bring it to the notice of learned Arbitrator. NOVEMBER 03, 201.1 msr E-s. -C'h'4' --G. s. s lsrAN l,J--

| ?--- '( THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on: 16.08.2011 ' OMP No.41l2Q11 & IA No.10zs0/20t1 I\4/S KOLMET ENTERPRISES & ORS. ..... PEtitiONETS Through: Mi S.K. Maniktala, Adv. with Mr Pratyush SahaY, Adv. versus MR SURJIT SINGH KOHLI & ORS ..... Respondents Tlu'ough: Ml M.M.Kashyap, Adv. for R-1. -t coRAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papels rnay be allowed to see the judgrnent ? 2. To be refened to the Reporter or not ? \I vp s 3. Whether the juclgrnent should be reported in Digest ? I / ' I MANMOHAN SINGH. J 1. By this order I shall dispose of the main petition as well as -ij application filed by respondent No.l under section 151 of CPC seeking vacation of interirn order dated 18.01.2011. 2. The petitioners have filed the instant petition under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 read with section 151 of CPC. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner Nos.2 to 7 and the respondents had been canying on their business in parnrership under the nurme and style of M/s Kolmet Enterprises under the partnership deed Page No.l of I I1 \-) dated 07.05.1991 having its head office at 1408, Chiranjeev Towers, Nehru Place, New delhi-110019. IWs Kolmet Enterprises (hereinafter refen'ed to as petitioner No.1) is a duly registered firm with the Registrar of Firms, Delhi and is engaged in the business of nruring a restaurant under the narne and style of "The Host" at F-8, Cannaught Place, New Delhi for the last more than 30 yea.rs. 3. It is averred in the petition, that Petitioner Nos. 2 to 7 and respondent No.2 collectively hold 86% share in the petitioner No.l finn whereas respondent No.l holds I4%o share in the petitioner No.l finn. The parlnership deed dated 07.05.1991 provides that petitioner Nos.2 & 3 and are to act as Managing Parbrers of the petitioner No.l firrn, and thus the said petitioners have been rnanaging the affairs of the petitioner No.1 firm. 4. The gdevance of the petitioners is that recently respondent No.1 issued separate letters/notice of revocation dated 09.12.2010 to the petitioner No.5 and notice dated 19.12.2010 to the petitioner Nos.2 & 3 asking them to withdraw fi'om the position of Managing Parhrers of the petitioner No.1 firm and revoking the powers of the said Managing Parbrers to operate the bank accounts of the petitioner No.l fum. Acting upon the said notices ofrespondent No.1, the respondent No.3 suspended the operations of bank account of petitioner No.1 firm on22.I2.20I0, as J., OMP No. 4l/2011 Page No.2 of 8 ll . aresult of which the entire banking operation of the petitioner No.1 ftrn has been stopped thereby seriously affecting its business. 5. It is stated by the petitioners that due to such conduct of the respondent No.l, sedous differences have cropped up between the parties. Therefore, the petitioners have invoked the Arbit'ation Clause, as enshrined under clause 15 of the parhrership deed dated 07.05.1991. The clause 15 reads as follows: "Any dispute or dffirence which may arise a befiveen the partners or behveen partners and the legal heirs and succe,ssor,t of a deceased partner with regard to the construction, meanin.g or fficts of this Deed or any part thereof or respecting the accout'tls, profits or losses of the business of the rights and liabilities of the partners under a Deed of Dissolution or any matter relating to the firnr shall be referred to Arbitration and the provisions of the ArbitrationAct, 1940 shall apply thereto." 6. The petitioners have nominated their respective norninee arbitrator and have also called upon the respondent to do the same at earliest so as to avoid any delay in the adjudication of their disputes. J Petitioner No.2 has nominated Mr. Klishan Narang, Advocate as his norninee, petitioner Nos. 5, 6, and 7 have norninated Mr. P.L. Singla" Additional Distict Judge, Delhi (Retd) as theil nominee albitator and petitioner Nos. 3 & 4 have nominated M'. Rajeev Mago, Chafted Accountant as