Navin Chawla DECISION
Navin Chawla, J.
1. This petition has been filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') seeking appointment of an Arbitrator for adjudicating the disputes that have arisen between the parties in relation to the LLP Agreement dated 17.08.2017 executed between the parties.
2. The Arbitration Agreement between the parties is contained in Clause 52 thereof, which is reproduced hereinunder:-
"52. All disputes between the partners or between the Partner and the SNIGDHA PAPER & PACKAGING LLP arising out of the limited liability partnership agreement which cannot be resolved in terms of the agreement shall be referred for arbitration as per the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996)."
3. Disputes having arisen between the parties, the petitioner invoked the Arbitration Agreement vide notice dated 15.02.2022. In response, the respondent vide reply dated 08.03.2022, inter alia, refused the appointment of an Arbitrator. The petitioner has filed the present petition thereafter.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on the order dated 18.01.2023 passed by the learned District Judge, Commercial Court-03, Shahdara District, Karkardooma Court in CS (Comm) 126/2022 titled M/s Snigdha Paper and Packaging LLP Through Its Partner v. Jyotsna Sinha, whereby the learned District Judge has been pleased to allow the application filed by the petitioner under Section 8 of the Act, inter alia, observing as under:-
"Perusal of this said suit, shows that defendant herein has sued to the plaintiff No. 1 firm for recovery of Rs. 6,76,526/-with 18% interest. The said suit as evident from the plaint which is in Hindi, shows that defendant herein had sold two machines to the plaintiff No. 1 firm for Rs. 3,69,920/-and Rs. 3,16,606/-respectively. It is argued by Ld. Counsel for defendant that cause of action for filing the said suit at Gautam Budh Nagar is a stand alone and has nothing to do with the dispute raised by the plaintiffs in the case in hand.
On the contrary, it is argued by Ld. Counsel for plaintiff that LLP which was agreed between the three partners that plaintiff No. 2 and 3 and defendant No. 1 was for Rs. 25 lacs with 33.33% share each and the contribution of each partner was Rs. 8.33 lacs. It is argued that the Gautam Budh Nagar suit has direct bearing of this case cited, in so far as no initial contribution money was paid by the defendant and the said liability in the Gautam Budh Nagar suit was adjusted against Rs. 8.33 lacs contribution.
This plea is vehemently denied by Ld. Counsel for defendant / applicant and reference has made to Para-4 of the plaint where plaintiffs have clearly stated that "That defendant Jyotsana Sinha was bound to pay Rs. 8,33,333/-towards her capital contribution with M/s Snigdha Paper & Packaging LLP but she could arrange only Rs. 6,50,000/-and balance amount of Rs. 1,83,333/-were paid by Mr. Shantanu Sinha. But she could not return this amount to Shri Shantanu Sinha, she requested plaintiff No. 1 to adjust this amount out of dues to M/s Nag Paper Tubes and reimburse to Sh. Shantanu Sinha." There is also reference that when defendant could not pay back the said Rs. 1.83 lacs to Shantanu Sinha and she had made a request to plaintiffs to adjust this Rs. 1.83 lacs money from the dues which plaintiff agreed to defendant qua sale of two machines. This specific admission makes it clear that financial liability under which plaintiffs owes money to the defendant is a stand alone independent liability and has nothing to do with the dispute amongst the partners in the LLP in question."
(Emphasis supplied)