VBC 1 arp33.10-11.2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE ARBITRATION PETITION NO.33 OF 2010 Bharat Arjunrao Sapar. ...Petitioner. Vs. Vishnu Arjun Sapar & Anr. ...Respondents. .... Mr.Pankaj J.Das for the Petitioner. Mr.S.D.Thokade for the Respondents. ..... CORAM : DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J. February 11, 2011. P.C. : On 14 September 1978, the Petitioner and the Respondents entered into a Deed of Partnership for carrying on business of commercial and textile art, including calendar designing. According to the Petitioner, the terms on which the earlier partnership was constituted, were modified by another Deed of 1 July 1992. By a notice dated 27 February 2003, the Respondents while referring to the partnership which was constituted on 1 January 1978, purported to dissolve the partnership which was a partnership at will. In a response dated 23 May 2003, the Petitioner noted that there was no reference in the Respondents’ communication to the Deed of Partnership of VBC 2 arp33.10-11.2 1992. However, while acknowledging the intent of the Respondents to dissolve the partnership, the Petitioner called upon the Respondents to agree to an appointment of an Arbitrator in pursuance of an arbitration agreement contained in the partnership deed. By their letter dated 30 May 2003, the Respondents declined to agree upon the name of an Arbitrator suggested by the Petitioner. Finally, a notice was addressed on behalf of the Petitioner on 19 June 2003. The Petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, has been lodged on 2 August 2010. The defence is that the claim as well as the Petition are barred by limitation. On the other hand, it has been submitted on behalf of the Petitioner that the claim is not barred by limitation since the Respondents by a notice of 27 February 2003 has purported to dissolve the partnership which was constituted on 1 January 1978. It has been urged that since the notice was silent about the modification which was brought about by the second Deed of VBC 3 arp33.10-11.2 Partnership dated 1 July 1992, the notice does not purport to dissolve the partnership which was constituted by the latter deed and hence, the claim is within limitation. Even if the argument which has been urged on behalf of the Petitioner were to be accepted for the time being, it is evident that disputes arose between the parties as far back as in February 2003 upon the Respondents issuing a notice and the Petitioner by a response dated 23 May 2003 invoking arbitration. The Petition has been filed well over seven years after the disputes have arisen. The Petition ought to have been filed within a period of three years in any event, having regard to the provisions of Article 137 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act. In the circumstances, the Petition under Section 11(6) is barred by limitation. It has been sought to be contended that the Petitioner had filed an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Solapur on 31 October 2003. That application is stated to have been returned for filing in the proper Court, namely, the District Court on 2 July 2010. However, the period that was spent in pursuing the proceedings under Section 9 cannot save the limitation in so far as the institution of the Petition VBC 4 arp33.10-11.2 under Section 11(6) is concerned. For these reasons, the Petition under Section 11(6) would have to be dismissed. In the event that the Petitioner has any other remedies in respect of the claim in question, it would be open to the Petitioner to seek recourse to them if available in law. The Petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ( Dr.D.Y.Chandrachud, J.)