Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1412 (DEL)

SHUKARAN DEVI v. OM PRAKASH JAIN

2006-08-22

ANIL KUMAR

body2006
ANIL KUMAR, J. ( 1 ) THIS order shall decide the application of the defendant No. 1 under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to stay the proceedings of the suit for dissolution of partnership firm and rendition of accounts, payment of damages/mesne profits and to direct the plaintiff to refer the disputes to arbitration in terms of the arbitration agreement between the parties. ( 2 ) BRIEF facts to comprehend the disputes between the parties are that plaintiff is the daughter-in-law of Late Sh. Bodhraj Shah Jain who had died in 1948 and survived by four sons namely Sh. Washeshar Nath Jain, Sh. Om Prakash Jain, sh. Roshan Lal Jain and Sh. Tilak Chand Jain, husband of the plaintiff. ( 3 ) A partnership was started under the name and style of M/s. Roop General Store in shop No. 25, M. M. "market, Janpath, New Delhi. The partnership firm was the tenant/lessee of the said premises. This partnership which was formed in 1954 between the four sons of Late Sh. Bodhraj Shah Jain continued in the name and style of M/s. Roop General Store and after sometime Sh. Washeshar Nath Jain retired and remaining three sons of Late Sh. Bodhraj Shah Jain namely Sh. Om prakash Jain, Sh. Roshan Lal Jain and Sh. Tilak Chand Jain continued the partnership as per partnership deed dated 1. 1. 1968. ( 4 ) DURING 1970-1971 the partnership business shifted to shop No. 11, Janpath bhawan Market (Indian Oil Bhawan), New Delhi and the new shop was allotted to abovenoted three partners who became the co-lessee under the Director of estates, Government of India, New Delhi. ( 5 ) ON 23. 2. 1986 Sh. "tilak Chand Jain, husband of the plaintiff, expired who became the partner with the consent of the parties and pursuant to an agreement dated 7. 9. 1985. On 3. 4. 1991 another son of Late Sh. Bodhraj Shah Jain also died leaving behind his widow and a son namely Sh. Rajesh R. Jain, defendant No. 2. Widow of Late Sh. Roshan Lal Jain also died on 9. 6. 1999. ( 6 ) THE partnership between the plaintiff, Sh. "om Prakash Jain and Sh. "rajesh r. Jain, son of Late Sh. Roshan Lal Jain continued in terms of partnership deed dated 12. 6. 1999. Rajesh R. Jain, defendant No. 2. Widow of Late Sh. Roshan Lal Jain also died on 9. 6. 1999. ( 6 ) THE partnership between the plaintiff, Sh. "om Prakash Jain and Sh. "rajesh r. Jain, son of Late Sh. Roshan Lal Jain continued in terms of partnership deed dated 12. 6. 1999. The partnership deed earlier executed had categorically stipulated that in absence of original partner or his widow, the son was to be substituted with other partners and the partnership would not deem to be dissolved on account of death of any partner of the firm. According to the partnership deed partnership business was to be carried on by the partners or any duly authorized attorney, however, no third person was to carry on business from the premises of the partnership. ( 7 ) AFTER the death of Smt. Laj Rani Jain, wife of Late Sh. Roshan Lal Jain, defendant No. 1, Sh. Om Prakash Jain, and the plaintiff Smt. "shukran Devi were drawing Rs. 4500/- per month as working partner and defendant No. 2 was a sleeping partner who was getting no salary or allowance. Since Om Prakash Jain, defendant no. 1, was doing more work after the demise of Smt. "laj Rani Jain he was allowed to take an additional sum of Rs. 2500/- per month and, therefore, defendant No. 1 was getting Rs. 7000/- per month. ( 8 ) ACCORDING to the plaintiff she is illiterate and is not fully aware of the modes and practice of commercial business and was completely dependant on defendant No. 1 for running the business. According to her, her son Sh. Raj Kanwal jain, son of late Sh. Tilak Chand Jain also started going to the shop on regular basis from 1. 5. 2004 as plaintiff's nominee and when he started going to the premises of the partnership firm it transpired that defendant No. 1 was doing a parallel business in a part of the partnership premises. He was not keeping accounts and he dealt with the goods of the same nature in which the partnership firm was dealing. Inspection sought by the son of the plaintiff was refused and he was not even allowed to look at and count the cash received from the customers. The plaintiff alleged that in this illegal act two sons of the defendant No. 1 also joined. Inspection sought by the son of the plaintiff was refused and he was not even allowed to look at and count the cash received from the customers. The plaintiff alleged that in this illegal act two sons of the defendant No. 1 also joined. The goods sold by defendant No. 1 in his parallel business also attracted payment of sales tax and other duties levied by other departments, however, the defendant No. 1 has continued with his illegal acts. The son of the plaintiff has not been given access to the accounts and the cash of the firm despite a general power of attorney being executed by the plaintiff in his favour. The plaintiff, however, has been paid Rs. 4000/- per month and conveyance expenses with retrospective effect from 1. 5. 2004 The plaintiff claimed that she is entitled to atleast Rs. 20,000/- per month and on account of various illegalities committed by the defendant No. 1 she sought dissolution of the partnership on the ground that the defendant No. 1 had been using part of the partnership premises for a similar trade. She also claimed damages. It was categorically asserted that the relations between the plaintiff and defendant no. 1 has reached such a stage that there is no scope of any rapprochement between the parties and the dissolution of the partnership is the only solution between them. The plaintiff also alleged that defendant No. 1 alongwith his daughter-in-law and his grandsons is carrying on a parallel business from the premises of the same products that is cosmetics, perfumes and lipsticks etc and has refused neither to stop the parallel business nor to pay the amounts due to the plaintiff and in the circumstances the partnership has to be dissolved and the plaintiff is liable to render the accounts not only of the partnership business but other parallel businesses which is being carried on by the defendant No. 1. The plaintiff also claimed a decree of prohibitory injunction and mandatory injunction from carrying on any other business from the partnership premises and to remove any merchandise, stored or displayed for sale in the suit premises which is not of partnership. The plaintiff also claimed a decree of prohibitory injunction and mandatory injunction from carrying on any other business from the partnership premises and to remove any merchandise, stored or displayed for sale in the suit premises which is not of partnership. ( 9 ) THE defendant No. 2 filed a written statement also claiming that the suit be decreed in terms of the prayer made in the plaint, however, defendant No. 1 filed an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act contending inter-alia that there is an arbitration agreement in terms of Clause 18 of the Partnership deed and consequently, the matter cannot go on before the civil Court and an arbitrator be appointed. The defendant No. 1/applicant contended that the suit is false and frivolous and has been filed in collusion with defendant No. 2 and the suit of the plaintiff contravenes Section 69 (1) and (2) of the Partnership Act specially in respect to the relief of Prohibitory and mandatory injunction. ( 10 ) ACCORDING to the defendant No. 1 there is a valid arbitration agreement between the parties and the suit has been filed by the plaintiff, who is a party to the arbitration agreement, in contravention of the arbitration agreement despite the fact that the defendant No. 1/applicant is ready and willing to do everything for the proper conduct of the arbitration and since arbitrator has the power to award the reliefs claimed by the plaintiff, the suit should not be allowed to proceed. It was also contended that the allegations made in the suit are malafide and false to the knowledge of the plaintiff himself. Defendant no. 1/applicant stated that ever since the death of Sh. Tilak Chand Jain on or about 23. 2. 1986 no assistance was rendered by the plaintiff and defendant No. 2 and the son of the plaintiff, Mr. Raj Kanwal Jain who is a mechanical engineer and has worked with different companies. The partnership business has been developed manifold by putting untiring efforts by the defendant No. 1 and the yearly turnover of the business has risen from Rs. 9,44,003/- in 1985-86 to rs. 91,86,801/- in 2004-2005. The defendant No. 1/applicant also gave the details of the loans. According to him the capital accounts of the parties have also increased on account of the hard work put in by defendant No. 1. 9,44,003/- in 1985-86 to rs. 91,86,801/- in 2004-2005. The defendant No. 1/applicant also gave the details of the loans. According to him the capital accounts of the parties have also increased on account of the hard work put in by defendant No. 1. It was stated that after the receipt of the summons of the suit defendant No. 1/applicant made sincere efforts so that the plaintiff"s good sense prevails and she either withdraws the suit or else refer the matter to arbitration and on his failure the present application has been filed by the defendant No. 1. ( 11 ) THE application of the defendant No. 1 is contested by the plaintiff and defendant No. 2. Plaintiff contended that the suit is not covered under any arbitration agreement and even the allegations and the contentions raised by the plaintiff in the suit are such which cannot be adjudicated/referred to the arbitrator as there are serious allegations of forgery, fraud and misappropriation. ( 12 ) THE plaintiff/non-applicant also contended that the application has been filed by defendant No. 1 to avoid the rigor of Order 8 Rule 10 of CPC as neither the application under Section 8 was filed within 30 days nor the written statement was filed within 30 days as contemplated under Order 8 Rule 10 of Code of Civil Procedure and in the circumstances it was prayed that the application be dismissed. Regarding the plea that the suit be decreed and the application be dismissed it was stated that the defendant was duly served in July, 2005 and he appeared on 7. 9. 2005 and sought time to file the written statement upto 3. 10. 2005 and the present application has been filed on 27. 10. 2005. ( 13 ) THE defendant No. 2 has also filed reply to the application of the defendant no. 1 under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act contending inter-alia that Section 8 does not postulate stay of the proceedings and the business carried on separately by defendant No. 1 is not covered under the arbitration agreement between the parties and on these grounds dismissal of the application has been prayed. ( 14 ) THE learned counsel for the applicant has relied on 2003 (68) DRJ 702, Navin kumar and Another Vs. Standard Restaurant and Ors; AIR 1998 Kerala 256, Ashokan, managing Partner Karthiyani Oil Mills and others Vs. ( 14 ) THE learned counsel for the applicant has relied on 2003 (68) DRJ 702, Navin kumar and Another Vs. Standard Restaurant and Ors; AIR 1998 Kerala 256, Ashokan, managing Partner Karthiyani Oil Mills and others Vs. Jayan and 1996 (1) ALT 1053, P. Seshama Naidu Vs. P. Sanjeeva Naidu to contend that when there is a valid arbitration agreement and in view of encompassing arbitration agreement all the disputes between the parties be referred to the arbitrator. ( 15 ) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the pleadings and the application and replies. Partnership agreement is a consolidated contract which defines the constitution as well as functioning of the partnership. Clause no. 18 in the partnership deed reads as under:"that if any dispute shall arise between the parties in respect of the conduct of business of the partnership or in respect of interpretation, operation or enforcement of any of the terms of condition of this deed or in respect of any other matter, cause or thing whatsoever herein otherwise provided for, the same shall be referred for adjudication to the arbitration in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Arbitration act for the time being in force. " ( 16 ) IT is provided under section 5 of the Arbitration and Conciliation act, 1996 that no judicial authorities shall intervene in reference to matters except as provided under this part of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. When the arbitration clause in the partnership deed is couched in wide terms, the arbitrator will be competent to decide all the questions thereto including the question of whether or not the partnership shall be dissolved. The Court while exercising power under section 8 or 11 of the Act can entertain or decide upon the issues such as existence of arbitration agreement, its validity and scope of jurisdiction of the arbitrator to decide the disputes. All other issues are to be left for final decision of the arbitrator as jurisdiction of the Arbitral tribunal is now very wide so as to decide all the issues involved unless specifically restricted under the arbitration agreement. The Arbitrator in such facts and circumstances is competent to decide all the questions including the question of whether or not the partnership shall be dissolved as the arbitration clause in the partnership deed is couched in wide terms. The Arbitrator in such facts and circumstances is competent to decide all the questions including the question of whether or not the partnership shall be dissolved as the arbitration clause in the partnership deed is couched in wide terms. ( 17 ) THE partnership agreement between the parties is very wide and contemplates referring all the matter in difference between the parties to arbitration who will have power to decide whether or not the partnership should be dissolved and to award its dissolution. There is no principle of law or any provision which bars an arbitrator to examine such a question. The Supreme court in (2000) 4 SCC 368 , V. H. Patel and Co. Vs Hirubhai Himabhai Patel where the arbitrator had not decided about the dissolution of the partnership of closely related person and the High Court had remanded the matter back to the arbitrator had held-"11. It was pointed out that mere strained relationship between the partners would not be enough to dissolve a partnership. It is not necessary for us to examine this contention in this case when the partners sought for dissolution of the partnership on various grounds enumerated in Section 44 (c) to (f) may also be sufficient and may not be necessary to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of a court such as dissolution is just and equitable. If there has been breach of agreement and conduct is destructive of mutual confidence certainly such conduct can give rise to a ground for dissolution of the partnership. While mere disagreement or quarrel arising from impropriety of partners is not sufficient ground for dissolution, interference should not be refused where it is shown to the satisfaction of the adjudicating authority that the conduct of a partner has been such that it is not reasonably practicable for other partners to carry on the business in partnership. For instance, dissolution should be ordered if it is shown that the conduct of a partner has resulted in destruction of mutual trust or confidence which is the very basis for proper conduct of partnership. It is not necessary for us to go into or seek for an explanation of the reasons which may have induced the disputes between the partners. Dissolution will arise where it appears that the state of feelings and conduct of the partners have been such that business cannot be continued with advantage to either party. 12. It is not necessary for us to go into or seek for an explanation of the reasons which may have induced the disputes between the partners. Dissolution will arise where it appears that the state of feelings and conduct of the partners have been such that business cannot be continued with advantage to either party. 12. So far as the power of the arbitrator to dissolve the partnership is concerned, the law is clear that where there is a clause in the articles of partnership or agreement or order referring all the matters in difference between the partners to arbitration, the arbitrator has power to decide whether or not the partnership shall be dissolved and to award its dissolution. (See Phoenix v. Pope.) Power of the arbitrator will primarily depend upon the arbitration clause and the reference made by the court to it. If under the terms of the reference all disputes and differences arising between the parties have been referred to arbitration, the arbitrator will, in general, be able to deal with all matters, including dissolution. There is no principle of law or any provision which bars an arbitrator to examine such a question. Although the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a passage of Pollock and Mulla, quoted earlier, that passage is only confined to the inherent powers of the court as to whether dissolution of partnership is just and equitable, but we have demonstrated in the course of our order that it is permissible for the court to refer to arbitration a dispute in relation to dissolution as well on grounds such as destruction of mutual trust and confidence between the partners which is the foundation therefor. ( 18 ) THEREFORE the question that defendant No. 1 is misusing the assets of the partnership business and has also not been rendering the accounts and is also carrying on parallel business in the suit premises clandestinely and thus making money by using the premises and the assets of the partnership, are all disputes which will be within the scope of arbitration agreement between the parties. The power of the arbitrator to dissolve the partnership are clear in as much as where there is a clause in the articles of partnership or agreement or order referring all the matters in difference between the partners to arbitration, the arbitrator has power to decide whether or not the partnership shall be dissolved and to award its dissolution. The partnership agreement between the parties is clause No. 18 which is very wide in its amplitude as it contemplates all the disputes which may arise between the parties in respect of conduct of business of partnership or in respect of interpretation, operation or enforcement of any terms or condition or in respect of any other matter, cause or thing whatsoever not herein otherwise provided for, are to be adjudicated by the arbitrator. In these circumstance the plea of the plaintiff that since there are serious allegations of forgery, fraud and misappropriation the same cannot be adjudicated by the arbitrator is without any basis. As already discussed hereinabove under Section 5 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 no judicial authority has to intervene in reference of matters except as provided under the said Act. The Arbitration and Conciliation Act and any of its provisions do not reflect that the disputes among the partners regarding forgery, fraud and misappropriations are not to be adjudicated by an arbitral tribunal. The learned counsel for the plaintiff has also not shown any such settled law that the serious allegation of forgery, fraud and misappropriation cannot be settled by an Arbitral Tribunal under the provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. ( 19 ) THE objection of the plaintiffs that the allegations of forgery, fraud and misappropriation has been made and therefore the matter must be decided in the court cannot be sustained in the facts and circumstances. Arbitration clause/agreement cannot be given a go by simply on the basis of type of allegations which have been made by the parties to the litigation. ( 20 ) THE other objection of the plaintiff/non-applicant is that the application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act has been filed to avoid the rigor of Order 8 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure as the defendant No. 1 did not file either the application or written statement within 30 days and, therefore, the decree was likely to be passed against him. ( 21 ) A Division Bench of this Court in Delhi Development Authority Vs k. R. Builders P. Ltd, 2005 (4) AD Delhi 509 had held that the suit on the original side of the High Court would be governed by the original side rules and not by the amended provisions of Order VIII Rule 1 of CPC and once provisions of o VIII Rule 1 are excluded the question of reading these in harmony with the provision of Rule 3 of Chapter VI of the Original Side Rules will not arise. The apex Court has also held in Smt. Rani Kusum Vs Smt. Kanchan Devi and ors, 2005 air SCW 3985 that amendment in O 8 Rule 1 of CPC does not completely takes away power of Court to extend the time for filing the written statement beyond time specified in O 8 Rule 1 of CPC. Under the Original side rules of Delhi High court, Chapter VI Rule 3 one adjournment could be granted to the defendant applicant even on oral request for granting more time to file the written statement. The defendant no. 1 therefore, could file the application even after thirty days which has been filed but before submitting his first statement on the substance of dispute. Consequently on this ground the application of the defendant no. 1 can not be declined. ( 22 ) UNDER section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 which contemplates that appointment of arbitrator for adjudication of disputes between the parties is dependant on party's request, however, the party has to request within the time limit as contemplated in Section 8. For invoking Section 8 there has to be an arbitration agreement; a party to the agreement must bring an action in the Court against the other party; the subject matter of the action should be same as the subject matter of the arbitration agreement and the party other than which has moved the Court must move the Court for referring the parties to arbitration before it submits his first statement on the substance of the dispute. ( 23 ) CONSIDERING the facts of the present case it is apparent that there is an arbitration agreement and the plaintiff has raised the disputes pertaining to the dissolution of the partnership, M/s Roop General Store at Shop No. 11, janpath Bhawan and for rendition of accounts and an injunction against the defendant No. 1 from carrying on any other business in the partnership premises except that of partnership firm and to remove merchandise, stored or displayed of any other firm other than that of partnership firm and for a direction that if any amount is found due to any Government or semi Government department for running any business which was not contemplated by the partnership business, the liability be fixed on defendant No. 1. Considering the arbitration agreement it cannot be inferred that the claims raised by the plaintiff are not covered by the arbitration agreement which is of a very wide amplitude. The defendant No. 1 has also filed an application before submitting his first statement on the substance of the dispute. In the circumstances there is compliance of section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,1996 and there is no sufficient reason not to appoint an arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes which have arisen and which are the subject matter of this suit. The defendant No. 1 has also categorically stated that he was ready and willing to do all things necessary for the proper conduct of the arbitration and is still ready and willing to do everything for the conduct of the arbitration. ( 24 ) IN P. Anand Gajapathi Raju Vs. P. V. G. Raju, (2000) 4 SCC 539 and t. N. Electricity Board Vs. Sumathi, (2000) 4 SCC 543 the Apex Court noted that the preemptory language of Section 8 (1) and said that it was obligatory on the judicial authority to refer the parties in terms of the arbitration agreement. An application under this provision merely brings to the notice of the judicial authority that the subject matter of the action before it is the subject matter of the arbitration agreement and by referring the parties to arbitration it indirectly invokes the arbitration agreement so that a party wishing to pursue his claim can do so only by commencing arbitration proceeding. After the judicial authority has referred the parties to arbitration, the purpose of the application is served and nothing further remains to be done by it in connection with the application and the action brought by a party before the judicial authority goes into a state of suspension and gets disposed of. ( 25 ) THE applicant/defendant no. 1 has also taken an objection in the application under section 8 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 that the suit of the plaintiff is barred under section 69 of the Partnership Act. Section 69 of the Partnership Act is as follows:"69. Effect of non-registration" (1) No suit to enforce a right arising from a contract or conferred by this Act shall be instituted in any Court by or on behalf of any person suing as a partner in a firm against the firm or any person alleged to be or to have been a partner in the firm unless the firm is registered and the person suing is or has been shown in the Register of Firms as a partner in the firm. (2) No suit to enforce a right arising from a contract shall be instituted in any Court by or on behalf of a firm against any third party unless the firm is registered and the persons suing are or have been shown in the Register of Firms as partners in the firm. (3) The provisions of Sub-sections (1) and (2) shall apply also to a claim of set-off or other proceeding to enforce a right arising from a contract, but shall not affect," (a) the enforcement of any right to sue for the dissolution of a firm or for accounts of a dissolved firm, or any right or power to realise the property of a dissolved firm, or (b) the powers of an official assignee, Receiver or Court under the Presidency towns Insolvency Act, 1909 (3 of 1909) or the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920 (5 of 1920) to realise the property of an insolvent partner. " ( 26 ) FROM the plain language of Section 69 (3) of the Partnership Act, it is clear that three exceptions have been made where the disability under Section 69 will not operate, i. e. the enforcement of any right to sue for the dissolution of a firm; secondly, for account of a dissolved firm or any right; thirdly, power to realise the property of a dissolved firm. These exceptions are basically carved out to meet such kind of exigencies where a partner of an unregistered firm files certain proceedings for enforcement of any right to sue for the dissolution of the firm or for accounts of a dissolved firm or any proceedings to realise the property of a dissolved firm. The Legislature in its wisdom has created these exceptions because the disability which will operate qua an outsider or third party will not operate with regard to the filing of a suit to enforce a right arising from a contract on behalf of any person suing as a partner in a firm against the firm or any person alleged to be or to have been a partner in the firm. A Division bench of this Court in 118 (2005) DLT 316, mulakh RAJ v. SHASHI RANI and ANR had held that application for arbitration invoking arbitration and appointment of an Arbitrator in terms of Section 11 would be an application for dissolution of the firm or for having his share from the assets of the firm relying on Smt. Premlata and Anr. v. Ishar Dass Chaman Lal and Ors. , AIR 1995 SC 714 , where it was held by the Apex Court:"para 8. It is seen that with the demise of the partners, ipso facto, the partnership stood dissolved. What the legal representatives of the deceased partner is seeking to enforce is for accounts of a dissolved firm or any right or power to realise the property of the dissolved firm. The right "to sue" for the dissolution of the firm must, of necessity, be interpreted to mean the right to enforce the arbitration clause for resolution of the disputes relating to dissolved firm or for rendition of accounts or any right or power to realise the property of the dissolved firm. Para 10. The right "to sue" for the dissolution of the firm must, of necessity, be interpreted to mean the right to enforce the arbitration clause for resolution of the disputes relating to dissolved firm or for rendition of accounts or any right or power to realise the property of the dissolved firm. Para 10. It is fairly stated by Shri Satish Chandra that the party can enforce the right by a suit for rendering accounts and for realisation of the property of the dissolved firm pro rata. When that is permissible by an exception carved out by Sub-section (3) (a) to Section 69, we are of the view that there is no prohibition to invoke arbitration clause under the deed of partnership, agreed to by and between the parties to invoke Section 20 of the Act. Thus considered, we are of the view that the suit under Section 20 of the Act is maintainable. The High Court has, therefore, committed manifest error of law in holding otherwise. " ( 27 ) THE inevitable inference in the circumstances is that the suit of the plaintiff for dissolution of the partnership between the parties is maintainable and the objection taken by the defendant no. 1 cannot be sustained. ( 28 ) THEREFORE, for the reasons stated hereinabove, the application of the defendant no. 1 under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,1996 is allowed. Considering the arbitration agreement between the parties in clause 18 of the partnership deed between the parties, I appoint Shri Prem Kumar, Retired additional District Judge, C-12, Chiragh Enclave, New Delhi-110048, (Phone no. 9313783914) as a sole arbitrator for adjudication all the disputes between the parties pertaining to the partnership business M/s. Roop General Store carried on from shop No. 11, Janpath Bhawan Market (Indian Oil Bhawan), New Delhi raised by the parties. . The fee of the Arbitrator shall be Rs. 7,5000/- per hearing subject to a maximum fee of Rs. 1,50,000/- to be shared by the parties in the first instance subject to the decision of the Arbitrator as to liability of fees of Arbitration. Parties shall appear before the Arbitrator on 14. 9. 2006 at 4. 00 PM. A copy of this order be sent to the Learned Arbitrator. Copies of this order be also given dasti to the parties. Parties are also directed to intimate the Learned Arbitrator. Parties shall appear before the Arbitrator on 14. 9. 2006 at 4. 00 PM. A copy of this order be sent to the Learned Arbitrator. Copies of this order be also given dasti to the parties. Parties are also directed to intimate the Learned Arbitrator. ( 29 ) IN view of the appointment of Arbitral Tribunal for adjudication of disputes between the parties, the suit is disposed of. Parties are left to bear their own costs in this Court.