Judgment The Petitioners have invoked Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, the Arbitration Act, 1996) for various interim measures/reliefs in view of the existing arbitration clause in the partnership deed between the parties. 2 This Court, on 13 June 2011, has recorded the statement of Respondent No.7 that he will not dispose of, alienate, encumber, part with possession of or create any third party rights in respect of the properties of the firm including the property mentioned at serial No.8 at Exhibit “B”. The similar nature of statements have been recorded on behalf of the Petitioners and other parties also. The Court has accepted the statements and recorded accordingly. Respondent No.4 was also directed not to dispose of, alienate, encumber, part with possession of or create any third party rights in respect of the properties of the firm. It is thereby ordered that none of the parties shall dispose of, alienate, encumber, part with possession of or create any third party rights or interest in the immovable properties of the firm or surrender tenancy rights of the firm. It is also recorded on behalf of Respondent Nos 1 and 5 that the tenancy rights in respect of the properties at Serial No. 4 of Exhibit “B” were surrendered in the year 2008. By order dated 9 January 2012 the Chamber Summons was allowed and permitted to amend the Petition. The interim orders have been in force since then. The parties filed their respective affidavits and rejoinders. By consent, the matter listed for final disposal and accordingly heard finally. 3 Petitioner No.1 is the widow of deceased partner Mr. Naval Nariman. Petitioner No.2 and Respondent Nos. 2 to 7 along with late Dinshaw Nariman and Naval Nariman established the business of manufacturing and trading of dairy products in the firm named “M/s. Parsi Dairy Farm”. Respondent No.1 is the widow of late Dinshaw Nariman. Petitioner No.1 is the mother of Petitioner No.2 and Respondent No.7. Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 are the daughters of Respondent No.1. Respondent No. 6 is the daughter of Respondent No. 2. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are the brother and sister-in-laws of Respondent No.1. All in all, its a family business. The partnership deed provides and defines respective shares also. 4 In the year 1998 arose disputes and differences between the partners. 4 and 5 are the daughters of Respondent No.1. Respondent No. 6 is the daughter of Respondent No. 2. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are the brother and sister-in-laws of Respondent No.1. All in all, its a family business. The partnership deed provides and defines respective shares also. 4 In the year 1998 arose disputes and differences between the partners. The endeavour was made to settle the matter, but it could not be resolved. Therefore, Respondent Nos. 1 to 6 invoked Arbitration Clause on 27 December 2000 and appointed an Arbitrator. Another Arbitrator was appointed on 15 October 2001 and ultimately the Presiding Officer was appointed by these two Arbitrators some time in November 2001. The matter was contested before the Arbitral Tribunal. The negotiations/ settlement took place after due deliberation and exchange of letters in January 2002, but because of the death of Presiding Officer and the retirement of one Arbitrator, the Arbitration proceedings stood terminated, and the result is, those negotiated consent terms could not be finalized and/or signed. 5 The Petitioners by letter dated 12 July 2010, requested to dissolve the partnership firm by giving one month notice and asked to give accounts of the firm since 2002 and also their respective shares. The said action of dissolution was opposed by other partners. The submission was also made to refer all the disputes to the Arbitration. Ultimately, the Petitioner, on 16 April 2011, invoked arbitration clause and nominated the Arbitrator and called upon the Respondents to give consent. 6 The Petitioners, therefore, in view of the averments made, filed the present Petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act and made following prayers. The submission was also made to refer all the disputes to the Arbitration. Ultimately, the Petitioner, on 16 April 2011, invoked arbitration clause and nominated the Arbitrator and called upon the Respondents to give consent. 6 The Petitioners, therefore, in view of the averments made, filed the present Petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act and made following prayers. “(a) that pending the hearing and final disposal of the Arbitration Proceeding, Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay or some fit or proper person be appointed as Receiver of the Partnership Firm of M/S. PARSI DAIRY FARM carrying on business at 261/263, Princess Street, Mumbai-400 002 with direction to take possession and charge of the properties of the Partnership Firm including the properties described in Exhibit-B together with all the Books of accounts, Vouchers, Documents, Licenses, Certificates, Title Deeds, Bank Accounts, and all the other tangible and intangible assets with all powers under Order XL Rule-1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; (b) that pending the hearing and final disposal of the above Arbitration Proceedings, the Respondents by themselves, their servants and agents be restrained by an Order of Injunction of this Hon’ble Court from selling, transferring, encumbering, disposing off and/or parting with possession of the assets and properties of the Partnership Firm including the properties described in Exhibit-B hereto as also from operating the Bank Accounts of the Partnership Firm; (c) for ad-interim relief in terms of prayer clause (a) and (b) above;” 7 Admittedly, the first and other related businesses have been going on. There is no restrainment order to stop the respective businesses. The disputes so raised even as per earlier reference shows that are adjudicatable and can be settled. As recorded earlier, though no final consent terms could be filed before the earlier Tribunal, yet the intention to settle the disputes was there. The case was also that the parties are in fact by accepting the said compromise acted upon. The Arbitral Tribunal terminated for uncontrolled reason, so also the earlier settlement. The active partners have not taken steps to dissolve the firms and/or its business. All partners having been doing their respective business. The Petitioners, who are not active members/partners, have issued the dissolution notice. 8 The reliance was placed on Smt. Rasilaben Kantilal Kansara Vs. Amratlal Babubhai Kocha & Ors ( 1987(3) Bom.C.R. 620 )to pass order of appointment of Receiver. All partners having been doing their respective business. The Petitioners, who are not active members/partners, have issued the dissolution notice. 8 The reliance was placed on Smt. Rasilaben Kantilal Kansara Vs. Amratlal Babubhai Kocha & Ors ( 1987(3) Bom.C.R. 620 )to pass order of appointment of Receiver. In the same judgment it is mentioned that, in every matter, the Receiver may not be appointed. The supporting facts and circumstances are necessary to grant such order specially in running family business firms. Thus, majority partners are doing their respective business without much obstructions. They have to earn income and also pay the liabilities and debts of the firms. Any closing or obstructions in the running business will further shatter the income, name and reputation of the firm and the family. This will not be in the interest of anybody. All need to share the profit as well as liabilities also. The authority to send such dissolution notice is also under challenge, so also the right of legal heirs of the deceased partners, to invoke arbitration. No case is made out for appointment of Receiver. The balance of convenience, equities and conducts are sufficient to grant and maintain the order already passed. The statement is made that the parties have appointed the sole Arbitrator to settle their dispute. 9 The counsel for Respondent No.7 (son), on instructions, made statement to provide a sum of Rs.25,000/-per month to the Petitioners (mother and sister) till the issues are decided by the Arbitrators. The other partners have no objection for this arrangement. Therefore, such order can be passed. 10 In the result, following order:- (a) Order dated 13 June 2011 granting protection, to continue till dispute is settled by the Arbitrator and six weeks thereafter till the first date of the arbitration by the Arbitrator. (b) The liberty is also granted to the parties to apply for appropriate order. The liberty is granted to the parties to do necessary business, day to day affairs and perform their respective obligations. (c) The parties to maintain accounts and to be placed before the Arbitral Tribunal, if directed and/or asked by either of the parties. (d) Respondent No.7 (son) to provide Rs.25,000/-per month to the Petitioners (mother and sister) till further orders as an interim arrangement subject to final adjudication and adjustment by the Tribunal, as the other partners have no objection for such arrangement. (d) Respondent No.7 (son) to provide Rs.25,000/-per month to the Petitioners (mother and sister) till further orders as an interim arrangement subject to final adjudication and adjustment by the Tribunal, as the other partners have no objection for such arrangement. (e) The liberty is granted to apply for modification of even this order. (f) All points are kept open. 11 The Petition is accordingly disposed of, in the above terms. There shall be no order as to costs.