Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.
Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.
2. These appeals arise on an issue relating to the reconstitution of a partnership firm. The learned single Judge has issued certain directions. These writ appeals were admitted and those directions stand stayed as per the order dated 11-08-2014. That order was sought to be appealed against before the Honourable Supreme Court of India. The Special Leave Petitions were dismissed.
3. Here, read the aforenoted order dated 11-08-2014, which is as follows:
“We have heard the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant in W.A. No.1086 of 2014 and for the appellant in W.A. No.1087 of 2014. The said appellant is the petitioner in W.P.
(C) No.15281 of 2014 and the additional 4th respondent in W.P.(C) No.15845 of 2014. We have also heard the learned counsel appearing for the private respondents in both the appeals, viz., the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.15845 of 2014 and the private respondents in W.P.(C) No.15281 of 2014. We have also heard the learned Senior Government Pleader on behalf of the Registrar of Firms.
2. Chandragiri Construction Company is a partnership firm. The then Managing Partner is no more. In producing the reconstituted partnership firm, one of the existing partners stood excluded. He objected to the registration of that partnership. The Registrar registered that partnership, leaving it open to the objector to carry the matter to the competent court or other authority in accordance with law. The excluded partner moved this Court by filing one of the writ petitions from which these writ appeals arise. The firm and one of the partners moved for issuance of necessary documents from the office of the Registrar of Firms. The learned single Judge has left open all contentions and preserved the rights of the parties to seek remedy before the civil court or other competent jurisdictions, without prejudice to whatever is stated by the Registrar of Firms or by the learned single Judge. The parties are, as at present, in arbitral proceedings in terms of the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Whatever that be, the pendency of the writ appeals and the judgment impugned in these writ appeals should not hang as Damocles' sword in the proceedings either before the Arbitrator or before any other authority. The impugned judgment should also not be available as a handle for either among the parties to make claims before creditors of the firm, Chandragiri Construction Company.
3. For the aforesaid reasons, these writ appeals are admitted.
There will be an interim order of stay of operation of the directions contained in the impugned common judgment, however, without prejudice to the right of the parties concluding the arbitral proceedings and also seeking any statutory remedy in accordance with the provisions of the Partnership Act. This order shall govern the parties for the present, for a period of six months. However, they will be at liberty to move this matter earlier, subject to the outcome of the arbitral proceedings or any resolution of disputes, otherwise, between them.”
4. By now, the arbitral proceedings have further proceeded and it is submitted that there are interlocutory orders issued by the Arbitral Tribunal governing the parties. We record the submission that interim orders have been issued by the Arbitral Tribunal.
In the aforesaid admitted situation, without prejudice to proceedings being carried before the Arbitral Tribunal and without, in any manner, affecting the efficacy of the interlocutory and final proceedings before the Arbitral Tribunal, the judgment impugned in these writ appeals are vacated on consent of parties and writ appeals are accordingly ordered in terms of what is stated above.
Sd/-
THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN JUDGE kns/-
Sd/-
BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE