S. MUKERJEE ( 1 ) THIS appeal has been preferred against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 21. 12. 2000 holding that the original petitioner/respondent is entitled to seek a reference to arbitration of certain disputes between the parties and to that extent allowed arbitration application AA 61/96. ( 2 ) BEFORE naming the Sole Arbitrator, the learned single Judge deferred the matter for two weeks, for ascertaining whether the parties would be agreeable to name a person of their mutual choice. ( 3 ) BEFORE the matter could crystalise along those lines viz. of there being an agreed name, the present appeal was preferred by the appellant who was respondent before the learned Single Judge. ( 4 ) THE prayer of the respondent/petitioner in the Arbitration Application No. 61/96 was to refer certain disputes between the parties relating to firm camy Enterprises, for adjudication by arbitration in terms of clause 17 of the agreement between the parties. ( 5 ) IT may be worthwhile to note at this stage that in all there were three firms having at least one member of each of the contesting families/groups, as a partner. M/s Camy Enterprises, it is agreed, was having the maximum turn over. As regards the other two firms viz. Venus Electronics and Citizen Electronics, there is no prayer or submission made regarding reference of any dispute to arbitration, in relation to either of those two firms. ( 6 ) AT this stage, for the purposes of completing the narration, it may be mentioned that there was an earlier litigation between some of the parties, relations, also in the form of an application under section 20 of the Arbitration Act which had been instituted in the District Court, being Suit No. 602/95. ( 7 ) THE said application had been filed by the wife of the present appellant. That application was subsequently withdrawn upon a statement made by the wife of the appellant (petitioner-therein) to the effect that in view of alleged settlement between the parties, she is not interested in pursing with that application. ( 8 ) IT may also be mentioned that by the same very impugned order dated 21. 12. 2000, the learned Single judge had also allowed OMP 23/97, being the objections filed by the present respondent (original petitioner ). As a result. of the allowing of the objections, the Award dated 11. 8. ( 8 ) IT may also be mentioned that by the same very impugned order dated 21. 12. 2000, the learned Single judge had also allowed OMP 23/97, being the objections filed by the present respondent (original petitioner ). As a result. of the allowing of the objections, the Award dated 11. 8. 95 stood set aside. ( 9 ) AFTER initially hearing the parties briefly on their respective contentions, we had made efforts to see if the matter could be resolved by the parties agreeing to the matter being referred to the arbitration of an agreed arbitrator from amongst the retired Judges, or anyone else mutually acceptable to both the parties. Various possibilities were discussed including the reference of the disputes regarding the other two firms, which were suggested to be also existing, or would be arising in case the Award dated 11. 8. 95 was to stand as set aside. ( 10 ) HOWEVER for one reason or the other, despite every effort on our part and notwithstanding the cooperation of the learned counsel to the extent possible in the face of otherwise rigid attitude of their respective clients, no settlement could be arrived at and ultimately the matter was heard on merits for which purpose, we heard them at length. ( 11 ) THE appellant who was the respondent before the learned Single Judge, has set up the case that the two families of R. S. Gambhir and S. S. Gambhir had been carrying on business in partnership. Three firms had been set up by them in each of which one member of each family was a partner.