1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 28 OF 2008 Shankar Eknath Nimhan ).. Petitioner Versus M/s Sprinkle Realities and others ).. Respondents Ms. Asha Bhambwani for the Petitioner. No present for the Respondents. CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. DATED : 24TH JULY 2009. P.C. This Petition has been filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Averments made are that the Petitioner had entered into a partnership with the Respondents vide Partnership Deed dated 2nd October 2006. During the course of business of the partnership concern, it came to the notice of the Petitioner that the Respondents were trying to conduct transaction in the business behind his back and parties lost confidence. The Petitioner first issued letter dated 23rd February 2008 and thereafter vide notice dated 27th March 2008 called upon the Respondents to concur to the name of the proposed Arbitrator who was to 2 act as Sole Arbitrator in terms of Clause 19 of the Partnership Deed. Clause 19 reads as under :- “19. ARBITRATION. In case of dispute between the partners either during the continuance of the partnership business or thereafter, in respect of the partnership business or in respect of other agreements, the same shall be referred for decision to the Arbitrator appointed by mutual consent by all the partners. If the decision of such Arbitrator is not acceptable to any partner, the same shall be settled through Court of Law. Provisions of Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 for the first time being together with amendments therein from time to time shall be applicable to such Arbitration proceedings.” 2. According to the Petitioner, despite service, the Respondents failed to concur with the appointment though they had earlier replied vide letter dated 10th March 2008, copy of which has been placed on record. On these facts, the Petitioner prays for appointment of Sole Arbitrator. 3. Initially, the Respondents appeared in this Petition and on different dates took time to negotiate the matter. However, vide order dated 6th February 2009, parties were granted time and it was clarified that if negotiations fail, the Respondents will file reply and the matter be heard on 6th March 2009. However, on 13th March 2009, by way of last opportunity, time was granted. Till today, no reply has been filed. None is 3 present on behalf of the Respondents. Hence, Petition heard and decided ex-parte. 4. In view of the uncontroverted facts and that there is an arbitration clause between the parties which is valid, subsisting and binding, Mr. Justice R.M. Bapat, Former Judge of this Court, is appointed as the Sole Arbitrator. Ordered accordingly. The Sole Arbitrator shall enter upon the reference and decide the dispute expeditiously. Petition disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. CHIEF JUSTICE