1. This Arbitration Application is filed under Section 11(2) & (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short 'the Act') read with Scheme of Appointment of Arbitrators, 1996 seeking for appointment of arbitrator for resolving the disputes that have arisen between the applicant and the respondent named in the application.

2. Heard Sri. Mohammad Adnan, learned Counsel for the applicant and the Sri. P. Vidhyadhar Goud, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent and perused the record.

3. Petitioner/Applicant contends that she along with the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have entered into a partnership business under a deed of partnership dated 11.10.2007 to carry on business under the name and style of 1st respondent i.e., M/s. Yuva fashions; that the petitioner/applicant had retired from the partnership business on 30.09.2018 and the partnership was reconstituted under deed of partnership dated 01.10.2018; that upon retirement of the petitioner, the respondents were required to settle the accounts of the petitioner, which the petitioner claims to be in a sum of Rs. 30,00,000/-; and that on account of non-payment of the said sum, disputes have arisen between the petitioner and the respondents being the continuing partners of the firm.

4. Petitioner contends that in order to resolve the disputes between the parties in terms of partnership deed dated 11.10.2007 and the partnership deed reconstituting the partnership on account of retirement of petitioner dated 01.10.2018 by way of arbitration in terms of Clause 12 of the original partnership deed and also Clause 11 of the deed of partnership dated 01.10.2018, she had issued legal notice dated 10.12.2021. The respondent though having received the same, did not agree to the arbitrator named by the petitioner in the said notice. Aggrieved by the same, the present application is filed.

5. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent does not dispute the fact of the respondent entering into an agreement to carry on the business of partnership, vide partnership deed dated 11.10.2007, containing an Arbitration Clause for resolving the dispute by reference to Arbitration, so also the deed of partnership under which the petitioner herein had retired from the partnership deed and the consequential reconstitution of the partnership, vide deed dated 11.10.2018.

6. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent would however submit that both the partnership deed dated 11.10.2007 as well as the retirement deed dated 01.10.2018 are insufficiently stamped and, therefore, the petitioner ought to have taken steps for getting them sufficiently stamped before invoking the Clause thereunder, as such the present application cannot be considered.

7. I have taken note of the submissions of the respective Counsel appearing for the parties.

8. The factum of the parties entering into partnership business initially under the partnership deed dated 11.10.2007 which provided for resolution of disputes by reference to arbitration under Clause 12 thereof and also under the deed of partnership dated 01.10.2018 whereunder the petitioner herein having retired from the partnership deed leading to reconstitution of the partnership business carried on in the name of 'Yuva fashions' between the remaining partners also containing arbitration under Clause 11 thereof is not in dispute. The Arbitration Clauses under both the Agreements read as under:-

"Clause 11 of Partnership Deed dated 01.10.2018: In case of dispute arising among the partners, it shall be referred to arbitration and the decision of such arbitration shall be final and binding on all the partners.

Clause 12 of Partnership Deed dated 11.10.2007: In case of dispute arising between the partners, it shall be referred to arbitration and the decision of such arbitration shall be final and binding on all the partners."

9. Since under both the partnership deeds by which the petitioner joined as partner and exited therefrom, provides that the disputes arising between the parties are to be resolved by reference to the Arbitrator, and though the petitioner by notice dated 10.12.2021 had named an Arbitrator for resolving the disputes, since the respondents are not agreeable to the same, this Court is of the view that the dispute should be referred to an Arbitrator appointed by this Court.

10. In so far as the objection of the respondent with regard to both the partnership deed being insufficiently stamped, the said objection cannot be adjudicated by this Court while considering the application filed under Section 11 of the Act for appointment of an Arbitrator. The Supreme Court in N.N. Global Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. v. Indo Unique Flame Ltd. (2021) 4 SCC 379 [LQ/SC/2021/17] held that non-payment of deficiency of stamp duty does not invalidate the contract. In view of the same, the objection of the respondent is liable to be rejected.

11. Accordingly, this Arbitration Application is allowed and this Court hereby appoints Sri. L. Ravichander, learned Senior Counsel of this Court, Door No. 1-10-65, Ashok Nagar Road, Ashok Nagar, Himayatnagar, Hyderabad, Telangana 500020, to be the sole arbitrator for resolving the disputes between the parties. It is open for the parties to raise all the relevant pleas available to them before the learned Arbitrator. Learned Arbitrator shall make necessary disclosure in terms of the provisions of the Act and shall be entitled to charge fees according to the provisions of the Act. No costs.

12. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.