1 arbap18-08 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ABRITRATION APPLICATION NO.18 OF 2008 Gangadhar S. Shetty & Ors. ....Applicants V/s. Diwakar Narayan Shetty ....Respondent Mr.Sanjiv Sawant with Ms.Gunjan Shah i/b Mr.Samir Suryavanshi & G.P. Shah for the Applicants. Mr.Jatin Sheth i/b Mr.Bhavesh Parmar Respondent. CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATE : 22ND JULY, 2010. P.C. :- 1. This is an application under section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Applicants and the Respondents carrying on business as the partners in the firm name and style of M/s.Sagar Developers on the terms and conditions contained in the Deed of Partnership dated 11.3.2006. Clause 30 of the Deed of Partnership reads as under :- “30. That all matter of difference and disputes and all questions whatsoever which may or shall either during the continuance of the partnership or at its determination or thereafter arise between the partners hereof or his/their heirs or legal representatives with regard to any matter or thing relating to the partnership affairs or to the construction meaning or applications of any of the clauses herein contained or to any account, valuation or division to the made hereunder or to any act, deed or omission of any partner hereof or to the rights, duties or liabilities of any party under these presents shall forthwith be referred to Sole Arbitrator and such arbitration shall be in 2 arbap18-08 accordance with and subject to the provisions of the Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, or any other statutory modifications thereof. The venue of the Arbitration shall be at Mumbai and each party shall extend necessary co-operation and submit all the documents and informations as may be required by the said arbitrator.” 2. By a letter dated 17.9.2007, the Applicants invoked the arbitration clause. One of the grievances is that the Applicants came to know that the Respondent had illegally entered into an M.O.U. with M/s.Sagar Dwellers Pvt. Ltd. without the consent or knowledge of the Applicants and have misappropriated the funds of the partnership. The Applicants therefore, called upon the Respondent to reimburse the loss caused to the firm. This would be a claim before the Arbitrator. 3. It was contended that the agreement having already been executed, the arbitration clause would not survive. The contention is rejected. The arbitration clause clearly includes within its ambit such a dispute. 4. In the circumstances, the application is allowed as prayed. Ms.Alpana Ghone, an advocate of this Court is appointed as a sole Arbitrator.