Research › Search › Judgment

Tripura High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 155 (TRI)

Sadhana Guha v. Manash Debnath

2015-04-10

DEEPAK GUPTA

body2015
JUDGMENT By means of this petition filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) the petitioners had prayed that the dispute between the petitioners and the respondent be referred to the arbitration in terms of Clause 18 of the Partnership Deed. 2. The case of the petitioners is that on 08.07.2005 a partnership was entered into between Sri Manash Debnath, Shri Kuntal Chakraborty, Miss Rumela Ghha and Shri Jyotirmoy Das. Each of the partners had equal share in the firm and this firm was constituted to run a Bengali daily newspaper “Dainik Arohan” which was to be published from Agartala city. It is further alleged that the partnership was reconstituted in the year 2009. Shri Kuntal Chakraborty, Smt. Rumela Guha and Sri Jyotirmoy Das voluntarily retired from the partnership firm and three new partners, namely, Sri Jiban Chakraborty, Smt. Sikha Deb Guha and Smt. Sadhana Guha were inducted in the partnership. It would be pertinent to mention that Smt. Sikha Deb Guha was the wife and Smt. Sadhana Guha was the mother of Late Sri Dhiraj Guha who was editor of the newspaper since its inception. The shares in this partnership were as follows: Sri Manash Debnath : 30% Sri Jiban Chakraborty : 10% Smt. Sikha Deb Guha : 30% Smt. Sadhana Guha : 30% The partnership deed contains an arbitration clause which reads as follows: “18. ARBITRATION: That, if any dispute or difference of opinion arises between the partners in relation to the partnership business or as to interpretation, operation or enforcement of the terms of this partnership deed or as to any other matter relating to the partnership, the partners shall first try to settle it but in case of failure, it shall be referred to the arbitration to a common well wisher to be appointed by them and his/her award shall be final and binding on them in all respect. If the decision of the aforesaid well-wisher is not able to satisfy the partners the partners, in that circumstances, that shall be referred to the arbitration.” 3. On behalf of the petitioners it was alleged that since 2009 various problems started arising in the administration of the firm. According to the petitioners, Manash Debnath had without the consent of the other partners given a declaration to the effect that he is the proprietor/owner of the newspaper “Dainik Arohan”. On behalf of the petitioners it was alleged that since 2009 various problems started arising in the administration of the firm. According to the petitioners, Manash Debnath had without the consent of the other partners given a declaration to the effect that he is the proprietor/owner of the newspaper “Dainik Arohan”. Since this declaration was to the detriment of the other partners and the firm which was the true owner of the paper an application was filed with the District Magistrate & Collector, West Tripura to change the name of the proprietor/owner and cancel the name of Sri Manash Debnath and to show the partnership firm as owner. The District Magistrate & Collector exercising power under Section 8(B)(iv) cancelled the registration in favour of Sri Manash Debnath with all consequence, however, he refused to incorporate the name of the partnership firm in the in the absence of any consensus between the parties. 4. Since 13.03.2010 the paper has not been published. The grievance of the petitioner is that unless Manash Debnath gives a declaration that he is no longer the proprietor/owner of the newspaper the partners cannot approach the District Magistrate & Collector for approval of the name of the firm as owner/proprietor of the newspaper. Since Manash Debnath has not agreed to this proposal invoking the arbitration clause it is prayed that the dispute be referred to arbitration. 5. Appearing for Sri Manash Debnath, Ms. S. Deb Gupta contends that even before the constitution of the firm, the paper (Dainik Arohan) was being run under the individual ownership of Manash Debnath. He had given the declaration on 17.08.2005. The case of the respondent is that Dainik Arohan is his exclusive property and the partnership firm has no right, title or interest in the newspaper. Manash Debnath has also challenged the order of the District Magistrate before the Press and Registration Appellate Board (for short, the Appellate Board). It is also alleged by Ms. Deb Gupta that no dispute arises between the parties and no dispute has been culled out. 6. I am not in agreement with the submission made by Ms. S. Deb Gupta. The dispute is writ large. The dispute is whether Manash Debnath is the owner of the newspaper or whether the ownership should vest in the partnership firm. Deb Gupta that no dispute arises between the parties and no dispute has been culled out. 6. I am not in agreement with the submission made by Ms. S. Deb Gupta. The dispute is writ large. The dispute is whether Manash Debnath is the owner of the newspaper or whether the ownership should vest in the partnership firm. At this stage it is not for me to say anything on the dispute but the dispute has obviously arisen. Therefore, I am clearly of the view that the matter deserves to be referred to arbitration. 7. I hereby appoint Sri Sukhomoy Lodh, (Ex-Registrar of this Court) resident of Pratiksha Apartment, East side of Governor’s House, Flat No. B-6, kunjaban, P.O- Abhoynagar, Agartala-799005 as sole arbitrator to decide the dispute. His fees is fixed at Rs.60,000/- , Rs.30,000/- is to be paid by the petitioners and Rs.30,000/- by the respondent. 8. Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to Sri Sukhumoy Lodh so as to reach within one week from today. The parties are directed to appear before him on 24th April, 2015 and they should file their claims and counter claims before him by the said date. 9. The Arbitrator is requested to dispose of the matter as early as possible and in any event by 31st October, 2015. 10. The petition is accordingly disposed of.