MUKUL MUDGAL, J. ( 1 ) THIS is a petition under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996,seeking a reference of disputes/claims to the Arbitrator for adjudication. ( 2 ) THE petitioner has relied upon the Arbitration Clause contained in Annexure-Awhich is the Agreement dated 1. 9. 1995 between the parties. ( 3 ) THE arbitration clause of the said Agreement reads as follows: "that all disputes and questions in connection with the partnership or thisdeed arising between the partners or between any one of them or their legalrepresentatives and whether during or after the partnership, shall be referredto the arbitrator in accordance with the provisions of Arbitration Act, then inforce. " ( 4 ) THE dispute between the parties as per the petitioner is said to have arisen outof a partnership formed by the said Partnership Deed dated 1. 9. 1995. In the replyfiled on behalf of the respondents, the plea for appointment of an arbitrator is resistedinter-alia on the ground that the petitioner has not made out any dispute which isrequired to be referred to the arbitrator. It is the respondent s plea that there is noreferable dispute as all accounts of the firm were mutually settled and closed in 1996. It is further stated that there were no contracts in the name of partnership during thesubsistence of partnership from 1/09/1995 to 31/03/1996 as thepetitioner did not contribute any capital in terms of the partnership deed which wasdissolved with effect from 31. 03. 1996. Its further submitted that the petition is barredby limitation as on 30. 12. 1996 the petitioner himself had given a declaration that hedoes not have any claim in the said partnership firm. ( 5 ) IT is also stated that the partnership deed not being registered the bar of Section69 (2) applies and the dispute is therefore, not referable to arbitration. In so far as theplea of bar under Section 69 (2) is concerned, the learned counsel for the petitionerhas relied upon the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court reported as Prabhushankar Jaiswal Vs. Sheo Narain Jaiswal and Ors. (1996) 1 1 SCC 225 to contendthat the bar of Section 69 (2) relating to an unregistered firm is not applicable in thedispute interse between the parties. ( 6 ) THE relevant Paragraph of the aforesaid judgment reads as follows: "our attention was drawn to the case of Jagdish Chandra Gupta Vs. Sheo Narain Jaiswal and Ors. (1996) 1 1 SCC 225 to contendthat the bar of Section 69 (2) relating to an unregistered firm is not applicable in thedispute interse between the parties. ( 6 ) THE relevant Paragraph of the aforesaid judgment reads as follows: "our attention was drawn to the case of Jagdish Chandra Gupta Vs. Kajariatraders (India) Ltd. AIR 1964 SC 1882 where this Court has held that theword proceedings in the first part of sub-section (3) must be widely construedto include proceedings in arbitration. The exception carved out under subsection (3) (a) would equally apply to such proceedings. The dispute, however,in that case between the partners did not relate to dissolution or accounts ofthe partnership firm. Hence a resort to the exception under sub-section (3) (a)was not required. In fact, this aspect was neither argued nor considered bythis Court in that case. This question directly arose in Prem Lata Vs. Ishardass Chaman Lal, (1995) 2 SCC 145 . This Court has held that a suit undersection 20 of the Arbitration Act was maintainable under the exceptioncarved out in sub-section (3) (a) of Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act. Hence where arbitration is sought under the arbitration clause in a partnershipdeed of an unregistered firm for the purpose of dissolution and accounts ofthe partnership firm. the partners scan maintain all applications/petitionsunder the arbitration Act for the purpose of enforcing their right to securedissolution and accounts of the partnership firm through arbitration. In fact, inthe present case the suit for dissolution and accounts of the partnership firmhas been stayed under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act at the instance ofrespondent 1. The petition of the appellant, therefore, under Section 8 ofthe Arbitration is maintainable in the present case. " ( 7 ) THUS the plea of the respondent as to the non-registration of the firm as being abar under Section 69 (2) is covered by the position of law laid down by the aforesaidjudgment by the Hon ble Supreme Court in Prabhu Shankar Jaiswal (supra) andhas to fail. ( 8 ) INSOFAR as the question of limitation is concerned, the learned counsel for thepetitioner has relied upon a Judgment of Hon ble Supreme Court in Morer Mondals. S. K. Ltd. Vs. New India Assurance Co. ( 8 ) INSOFAR as the question of limitation is concerned, the learned counsel for thepetitioner has relied upon a Judgment of Hon ble Supreme Court in Morer Mondals. S. K. Ltd. Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. , (1999) 5 SCC 697 to contend thatthe limitation in so far as an arbitration application is concerned begins 15 days afterthe service of notice under Section 8 (2) of the Arbitration Act, 1940 which correspondsto Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Since the petitioner sent anotice on 22. 4. 99 undersection 11 of the Act, in view of the above position of law, thepetition would be within limitation and this plea of the respondent is without substance. ( 9 ) THE respondent s case is that the bar of limitation applies as the firm wasdissolved with effect from 31. 3. 96 after due notice sent for this purpose on 18. 3. 96. The respondent has relied upon a Notice dated 18. 3. 96 which letter bears thenotation of Regd. AD/upc. However, only the posting certificate has been annexedwhich shows that the letter was sent under UPC. According to the learned counsel forthe petitioner in view of the law laid down in Bharti Rani Singh Vs. Rajinder Singh Bedi 1997 III AD (DELHI) 1068 notice sent under UPC is not sufficient to demonstratethe proof of service under Section 114 of the Evidence Act. Thus this plea of therespondent that the notice was sent on 18. 3. 96 cannot be believed in view of theposition of law laid down by Bharti Rani Singh s case (Supra ). ( 10 ) IT is further submitted by the petitioner that the partnership having been said tohave been dissolved with effect from 31. 3. 96 by virtue of the notice given on 18. 3. 96is an afterthought. The respondent submits that petitioner having given a declarationon 30. 12. 96 about the retirement from the firm with effect from 1. 4. 96 the presentdispute was beyond limitation. This is however contradicted by the petitioner bycontending that even after 31. 3. 96 on 9. 4. 96 a tender was submitted to B. H. E. L. Thelast two lines of the declaration dated 30. 12. 96, according to the petitioner, havebeen typed afterwards as demonstrated by the different spacing. 4. 96 the presentdispute was beyond limitation. This is however contradicted by the petitioner bycontending that even after 31. 3. 96 on 9. 4. 96 a tender was submitted to B. H. E. L. Thelast two lines of the declaration dated 30. 12. 96, according to the petitioner, havebeen typed afterwards as demonstrated by the different spacing. The petitioner hasfurther stated that no stand of dissolution of the partnership was taken by therespondents in reply to the legal notice dated 21. 5. 99 and the contradictory standtaken on behalf of the respondent was that the petitioner was never a partner with therespondent. In view of the above facts and in particular the. fact that the reply of therespondent to the petitioner s notice dated 21. 5. 99 did not contain an avermentregarding the dissolution of the partnership with effect from 31. 4. 96 it is not possibleto sustain this plea of the respondent about the dissolution of the firm on 31. 3. 96. ( 11 ) FURTHERMORE on a perusal of the said judgment Morena Mandal S. S. K. Ltd. (Supra), the submission of the petitioner that notice under Section 1 1 having beensent to the respondent on 22. 4. 99 seems to be correct and the bar of limitation willnot come into play. ( 12 ) IN this view of the matter all the pleas raised by the respondents to resistreference to arbitration lack merit and are rejected. In view of the arbitration clausecontained in the agreement between the parties, this is a fit case for reference ofdisputes/claims between the parties to arbitration. ( 13 ) ACCORDINGLY in accordance with Clause 18 of the Partnership Deed between theparties, the disputes/claims between the parties as enumerated in Para 7 (1 ) of thepetition are referred to the arbitration of Mr. Justice D. R. Khanna, a retired Judge ofthis Court. The Arbitrator will give his award within four months from the date ofentering upon the reference. The Arbitrator to fix his fees in consultation with theparties. The petition is accordingly allowed with no order as to costs.