ESVINDER SINGH PARTNER OF SWISS DEVICE (I) v. CHASVINDER SINGH PARTNER OF SWISS DEVICE (I)

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as “A&C Act”) seeking appointment of an independent Sole Arbitrator in terms of Clause 12 of the Partnership Deed dated 09.02.2007 executed between the petitioner and the respondent in respect of the partnership firm M/s Swiss Device (I) “12. That in the event of any dispute arranging among the partners either with regard to carrying on the business or generally arranging out of this instrument of any of the terms and conditions the same shall be refer to an arbitrator mutually agreed upon by the parties to this deed.”. The arbitration clause reads as under::

2. The petitioner and the respondent are stated to be partners of M/s Swiss Device (I) (hereinafter referred to as “partnership firm”). It is the case of the petitioner that disputes have arisen between the parties in relation to the affairs of the partnership firm, including settlement of accounts, rendition of accounts, violation of various statutory compliances, and other disputes arising out of the Partnership Deed dated

3. It is submitted that the petitioner invoked the arbitration agreement by issuing a legal notice dated 09.02.2007. 15.05.2023

4. The respondent, vide it’s reply to the legal notice dated calling upon the respondent to mutually appoint an Arbitrator for, inter alia, dissolution of the partnership firm and rendition of accounts. 23.05.2023

5. Thereafter, on 29.11.2025, the respondent filed its reply to the petition, wherein it was averred that the partnership firm had already been dissolved by conduct of the petitioner in 2014 - 15; the legal notice dated, declined the said request of appointment, and, inter alia, contended that the said partnership firm was dissolved by the petitioner himself and that as on date, no arbitrable disputes survives between the parties. 15.05.2023 issued by the petitioner does not mention the claim amount

6. Per contra, it is averred by the petitioner that disputes relating to settlement and rendition of accounts continue to subsist between the parties, and that the respondent himself has continued to represent himself as a partner of the firm in subsequent proceedings and before statutory authorities, thereby acknowledging the continued existence of the partnership and the subsistence of disputes between the parties., and consequently, there exists no live or subsisting dispute capable of being referred to arbitration. It was further contended that the claims are ex facie barred by limitation and therefore, the present petition is not maintainable.

7. Since the existence of the arbitration agreement contained in Clause 12 of the Partnership Deed is not disputed, there is no impediment in constituting an Arbitral Tribunal for adjudication of the disputes between the parties. In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Krish Spinning, (2024) 12 SCC 1, read with Interplay Between Arbitration Agreements under Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 & Stamp Act, 1899, In re, (2024) 6 SCC 1, and Aslam Ismail Khan Deshmukh v. ASAP Fluids Private Limited & Anr., (2025) 1 SCC 502, the scope of examination under Section 11 of the A&C Act is limited and this Court is only required to ascertain the existence of a valid arbitration agreement before appointing an independent sole Arbitrator.

8. Accordingly, at joint request, Ms. Justice (Retd.) Rekha Palli, former Judge, Delhi High Court (Mob. No. +91 9810012120) is appointed as the sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties.

9. Considering the serious jurisidictional objection/s raised by the respondent, it is agreed by respective counsel that the same shall be decided by the learned sole Arbitrator as a preliminary issue before proceeding to adjudicate the matter on merits.

10. The learned Sole Arbitrator may proceed with the arbitration proceedings subject to the parties furnishing disclosure as required under Section 12 of the A&C Act.

11. The learned sole Arbitrator shall fix her fees in consultation with the parties.

12. All rights and contentions of the parties in relation to the claims/counter claims are kept open, to be decided by the learned Sole Arbitrator on merits, in accordance with law.

13. Needless to say, nothing in this order shall be construed as an expression of opinion of this court on the merits of the case.

14. The present petition stands disposed of in the above terms.

SACHIN DATTA, J JULY 17, 2026