JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner has filed the present Civil Miscellaneous Petition under the provisions of Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of sole arbitrator in terms of clause 16 of the Partnership Deed dated 10.11.2005 entered into between the parties. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that on 10.11.2005, the petitioner and the respondents have entered into the registered Partnership Deed, to carry on the business of civil constructions, interior decoration and other related services under the name and style of Parisaraa Developers. On 24.03.2008, the petitioner and respondents have entered into second project under the terms of Partnership in the name of Vishwa Prakruthi Green Woods. The petitioner and respondent Nos.2 to 5 have executed registered GPA in favour of the respondent No.1 to do all the acts and deeds in respect of schedule property. On the very same day, the land owners of properties have executed registered joint development agreement to M/s. Parisaraa Developers and agreed to transfer 59% share in the name of Parisaraa Developers Firm. After development, 24 Flats were allotted to the share of Parisaraa Developers Firm and 16 Flats were allotted to the owners share. That being the position, on 16.05.2018, at the time of meeting, the petitioner demanded the respondent No.1 to produce accounts position of Company up to March, 2018 in so far as First and Second Projects made under Parisaraa Developers is concerned. On that day, the respondent No.1 totally neglected and refused to produce any account details and information to the petitioner and informed that the petitioner should not interfere with the business of Partnership. After the said incident, on 25.05.2018, the petitioner issued notice for termination of GPA dated 24.03.2008, executed in favour of the respondent No.1 and on 26.05.2018, the same was published in the daily newspaper. 3. Inspite of the same, the respondent No.1 without knowledge of the petitioner, without having lawful attorney, illegally executed registered Sale Deed in favour of himself in respect of 2 BHK Flat. On 12.06.2018, again the respondent No.1 has executed registered Sale Deed in favour of the respondent No.4 without having lawful attorney. But inspite of sending letters, the respondents have not responded and also not attended the meeting. In the meantime, the petitioner sought account details from the Firm Auditor. On 12.06.2018, again the respondent No.1 has executed registered Sale Deed in favour of the respondent No.4 without having lawful attorney. But inspite of sending letters, the respondents have not responded and also not attended the meeting. In the meantime, the petitioner sought account details from the Firm Auditor. Then only the petitioner realized that there is misappropriation of funds and wrongful entries made in the accounts of Parisaraa Developers Firm in so far as both the projects and also the petitioner pointed out that, in the balance sheet which is certified by the Firm Auditor mentioned in the petitioners capital account as a cash withdrawal of Rs.25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five lakhs only), but in fact, to the best of the petitioners knowledge and belief the petitioner has not received any cash payment during the financial year ending 31.03.2013 under consideration. 4. It is further contended that in the said factual position, on 24.09.2018, the petitioner issued legal notice to the respondents calling upon the respondent Nos.1 and 4 to cancel the illegally registered Sale Deeds dated 29.05.2018 and 12.06.2018 respectively registered in their names and further called upon the respondents to settle the petitioners share of 20% as agreed under the Partnership Deed in so far as Vishwa Prakruthi Green Woods project, which is developers share mentioned in the schedule and also to settle the petitioners share and dues in the first project i.e., Parisaraa Flying View through Arbitrators as agreed under the partnership deed. The respondents did not reply to the legal notice issued by the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court for the relief sought for. 5. The respondents filed statement of objections admitted the registered sale deed entered into between the parties and two projects namely, Parisaraa Flying View and Viswa Prakruthi Green Woods by entering into joint development agreements with owners of the respective properties and denied the rest of the averments. It is contended that though the petitioner has issued a legal notice dated 24.09.2018, only respondent Nos.2 and 4 could attend and other respondents could not attend the meeting because of their pre occupation. It is further contended that the petitioner has now learnt that there is cash withdrawal of Rs.25 lakhs from his capital account is not correct. It is contended that though the petitioner has issued a legal notice dated 24.09.2018, only respondent Nos.2 and 4 could attend and other respondents could not attend the meeting because of their pre occupation. It is further contended that the petitioner has now learnt that there is cash withdrawal of Rs.25 lakhs from his capital account is not correct. Therefore, the petitioner has to establish the same and further at this point of time as the accounts were audited and approved by all the partners of the firm including the petitioner in the year 2013 itself, petition cannot now be heard to say that and cannot reopen. 6. It is further contended that the amount received in respect of sale deed which was standing to the credit of first respondent in his capital account in the firm has been adjusted towards the sale consideration payable for the sale of flat No.B-302. The balance amount has been paid through cheque bearing No.037419 to the petitioner. The said adjustment of the sale consideration is similar to as was done when the sale deed dated 07.02.2018, was executed conveying flat No.A-302 in favour of mother of the petitioner and on this ground, the petitioner cannot seek for arbitration of the dispute as made out in his petition and present petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable and therefore the question of appointment of Arbitrator to resolve the dispute does not arise and sought for dismissal of the Civil Miscellaneous Petition. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis. 8. Sri. B.E. Shreedhar, learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the averments made in the Civil Miscellaneous Petition, contended that there is no dispute with regard to the registration of the Partnership Deed entered into between parties and existence of two projects Parisaraa Developers and Vishwa Prakruthi Green Woods. He would further contend that there is arbitration clause No.16, the respondents have violated the conditions of the partnership deed, petitioner issued a legal notice and the same was not replied. Therefore, he sought to allow the Civil Miscellaneous Petition. 9. Per contra, Sri. He would further contend that there is arbitration clause No.16, the respondents have violated the conditions of the partnership deed, petitioner issued a legal notice and the same was not replied. Therefore, he sought to allow the Civil Miscellaneous Petition. 9. Per contra, Sri. B.N. Jayadeva, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 5 while reiterating the contentions urged in the objections statement would contend that the very Civil Miscellaneous Petition filed for appointment of Arbitrators is not maintainable and the petitioner has violated the terms and conditions of the partnership deed. He further contended that certain amount has been adjusted and remaining amount also paid to the petitioner through cheque and registered sale deed executed cannot be a matter of adjudication before Arbitration and therefore, sought to dismiss the Civil Miscellaneous Petition. 10. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, it is undisputed fact that the petitioner and respondents have entered into partnership deed to carry on the business of civil construction, interior decoration and the other related services on 10.11.2005 under the name and style of Parisaraa Developers. It is also not in dispute that that subsequently the parties have entered into Vishwa Prakruthi Green Woods project and there was a contract between the parties for distribution of shares. According to the petitioner, the respondents have violated the terms and conditions of Registered partnership Deed and according to the respondents, the petitioner has violated the terms and conditions of Partnership Deed and thereby dispute arose between the parties. 11. It is also not in dispute that the parties have entered into registered partnership deed dated 10.11.2005 as contemplated under Section 11(5) of the Act. Clause-16 of the said registered Partnership Deed stipulates for Arbitration and the same reads as under: 16) Arbitration 'If there were to be any dispute/s among the partners they shall be settled amicably among themselves. But, if there is any dispute/s, which cannot be, settle by themselves, the same shall be referred to arbitration by three Arbitrators. The decision of the Arbitrators or the majority of them shall be binding on all the partners'. 12. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner has issued legal notice as contemplated under Section 11(5) of the Act calling upon the respondents to resolve the dispute under the Arbitration Act. The existence of Partnership Deed between the parties is also not in dispute. 13. 12. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner has issued legal notice as contemplated under Section 11(5) of the Act calling upon the respondents to resolve the dispute under the Arbitration Act. The existence of Partnership Deed between the parties is also not in dispute. 13. In view of the aforesaid admitted facts, there is no impediment for this Court to appoint sole arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the parties. 14. In view of the above, Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed. Honble Mr. Justice A.N.Venugopala Gowda, formed Judge of this Court is appointed as sole arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the parties in terms of clause 16 of the Registered Partnership Deed dated 10.11.2005 entered into between the parties. 15. Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the learned Arbitrator and to the Arbitration Centre, Bengaluru, forthwith.