1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 591 OF 2009 WITH ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 592 OF 2009 Sunil Kumar Kapur ...Petitioner. Vs. Sushil Kumar Kapur & Ors. ...Respondents. Mr. D.H. Mehta i/by Mr. S.P. Kanuga for the Petitioner in Arbitration Petition No. 591 of 2009 and Mr. S.P. Kanuga for the Petitioner in Arbitration Petition No. 592 of 2009. Mr. Kamal Khatta i/by M/s. Vigil Juris for Respondent No.1. Ms. Saumya Shrikrishna with Mr. C.D. Patel for Respondent No.2. Mr. Anshok Davar with Mr. Vatsal Shah for Respondent No.3. Mr. Nahoush Shah with Ms. Arti Banerjee i/by M/s. Little & Co. for Respondent No.4. CORAM :- ANOOP V. MOHTA, J. DATED :- 21st November, 2009. P.C.- 1 Admittedly, both the firms are dissolved in the year 2007 itself, as it 2 was permissible to dissolve under Section 43 of the Partnership Act. Considering the scope and purpose of Section 43, 46 and 47 of the Partnership Act, therefore, I see a case is made out by the Petitioner for the reliefs so sought. 2 The additional reason in the present case is though the Arbitrator was appointed after dissolution of the firms, the parties could not settle the matter. The Arbitrator so appointed, also for some reasons resigned. The parties, thereafter unable to appoint/ substitute the new Arbitrator. 3 The parties, in fact, some time in the year 2008 itself, tried to settle the matter and accordingly prepared 3 packages to be distributed among themselves, but in vain. 4 The parties, by one way or other, though expressing their willingness and intention to settle the matter through the Arbitrator, but at the same stroke, from the submission so raised by the rival parties and affidavit so filed on record, it appears that they are unable to have practical solution in the matter. 5 Therefore, only desire or intention to settle the matter itself, is not sufficient unless, the parties move accordingly in all respect and find out and/or arrive at a practical solution. 6 Before this, both these matters are adjourned for settlement and for appointment of an Arbitrator also. But, one way or other, first of all the 3 parties are not willing to settle all the family disputes at one stroke. The Petitioner is ready to settle the whole family disputes but the Respondents are not. The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the Respondents is to appoint the arbitrator and/or to settle the matters/ disputes of these two firms styled as M/s. Jay Dayal Kapur and M/s. R.K. Kapur and Sons P. Ltd.. 7 For the above reasons, I see there is no reason now, to adjourn the matters for this purpose. 8 The relevant elements as contemplated under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Order 40 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, the CPC) are available. It is in the interest of all the parties and for equal and proper distribution, apart from the settlement of the firms’ Account, it is necessary to grant prayer clauses (a), (b) and (d). 9 It is made clear that, this appointment is only with regard to the properties of the two firms i.e.M/s. Jay Dayal Kapur and M/s. R.K. Kapur and Sons P. Ltd.. 10 However, the parties are at liberty to settle the matters, whichever way they want, including by appointment of Arbitrator immediately and placing all the matters before the Arbitrator with a request to dispose of and/or resolve their disputes within a fixed or reasonable time. The parties are also at liberty to refer all the disputes of the family, if they are willing to settle before the Arbitrator, so that the family disputes can be 4 settled in a one stroke. 11 In view of this, both the petitions are allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a), (b) and (d) and the same are disposed of, with liberty. No order as to costs. (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)