IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Arbitration Application No.13 of 2010 Subhash Chandra Batra ……… Applicant Versus Shri Suraj Prakash & another ………. Respondents Mr. P.S. Bohara, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. M.C. Pandey with Mr. Pawan Mishra, Advocatea for respondents Date of Judgment : 25.2.2011 JUDGMENT Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, C.J. Mr. Subhash Chandra Batra, Mr. Suraj Prakash Batra and Smt. Swarna Rani entered into a partnership deed. The said deed provided that the partnership business shall be deemed to have commenced on 7.1.1974 and shall continue till determined by the parties. Smt. Swarna Rani is dead. According to petitioner-Subhash Chandra Batra, despite the death of Smt. Swarna Rani, partnership is continuing because the partnership has not yet been determined by the parties. 2. The partnership deed contains an arbitration clause. It is alleged that disputes inter se partners have arisen, which require determination by an Arbitrator, to be appointed by this Court, and for that purpose, the present application has been filed. 3. Though, Mr. Madan Lal, husband of Late Swarna Rani, is not a party to the partnership, still it is being claimed and contended that disputes inter se the applicant and the surviving partner Mr. Suraj Prakash Batra touches upon disputes with Mr. Madan Lal and, accordingly, recourse must be taken to arbitration. 4. Mr. Madan Lal, not being a party to the deed of partnership, he has not agreed to the terms and conditions contained therein, including the arbitration agreement, although, if he is an heir or executor or administrator or representative of Late Swarna Rani, he is bound by the terms contained in the said partnership deed. Despite being so bound, Mr. Madan Lal, being not a party to the arbitration agreement, the subject arbitration agreement can be enforced against him. 2 5. Furthermore, the contention that the said partnership is continuing because the parties thereto have not yet determined the same, is of no effect, inasmuch as, in view of Section 42 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 the moment Smt. Swarna Rani died, partnership stood dissolved, since there is nothing in the partnership deed to show what else would happen in the event of death of a partner. In other words, the contract inter se the parties, as reflected in the partnership deed, does not say dissolution of the partnership will not take place by reason of death of a partner. However, despite such dissolution, if disputes have arisen touching or in connection with such dissolution, the same may be sorted out through arbitration, but such disputes would remain confined to the parties to the arbitration agreement and not involving a person, who is not a party to the arbitration agreement. In such view of the matter, there is no scope of appointing an Arbitrator, inasmuch as, disputes concern Mr. Madan Lal, who is not a party to the arbitration agreement. 6. The application is accordingly dismissed. This order will not prevent the applicant to take such recourse to law, as he may be advised to sort out the disputes highlighted in the application. (Barin Ghosh, C.J.) 25.02.2011 Aswal/Rdang