R.SATHYAMURTHY vs R.Raghavan(Deceased), R.Subbulakshmi(Deceased),1.R

O.S.A.No.108 of 2024 and connected appeals
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 21 / 08 / 2026
DATE OF DECISION : 28 / 10 / 2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE P. VELMURUGAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE GK.MUTHUKUMAAR
O.S.A.Nos. 108, 109, 113, 114, 121, 135, 138, 140, 142, 144 of 2024 and
O.S.A.Nos.154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159 & 160 of 2025
O.S.A.No.108 of 2024
CNR:{HCMA011149452024}
R.Sathyamurthy
Partner-Dinamalar
No.G-9, Parsn Paradise
109, G.N.Chetty Road, T.Nagar
Chennai-600 017
Appellant
Vs
R.Raghavan (Deceased)
R.Subbulakshmi (Deceased)
W/o.R.Raghavan
1. R.Ramsubbu
S/o. Late R.Raghavan
Residing at No.24, Birds Road, Cantonment
Tiruchirappalli-620 001.
2. R.R.Gopaljee
S/o. Late R.Raghavan
No.4/11, Mc Nicholas 4th Lane
Chetpet, Chennai-600 031
Dr.R.Venkitapathy (Deceased)
Dr.R.Krishnamurthy (Deceased)
Page No1/.131
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 04:40:03 pm )

O.S.A.No.108 of 2024 and connected appeals
3. Dr.R.Lakshmipathy
Partner-Dinamalar
No.219, Anna Salai
Chennai-600 002
4. Honourable Mr.Justice T.Somasundaram (Retd.)
Presiding Arbitrator
No.1/1688, 15th Street
H Block, Anna Nagar, Chennai-600 040.
5. Honourable Mr.Justice R.Jayashima Babu (Retd.)
Arbitrator
612, RMV Extension, 2nd Stage, 3rd Block
Bangalore-560 003.
6. Honourable Mr.Justice S.S.Subramani (Retd.)
Arbitrator
Plot No.2, Lakshmi Apartments
No.28/481/2, Sasta Nagar, Thiruvambadi
Trichur-25, Kerala.
7. K.Rajalakshmi
W/o. Late Dr.R.Krishnamoorthy
8. K.Ramasubbu
S/o. late Dr.R.Krishnamoorthy
9. N.Krishnakumari

D/o.Late Dr.R.Krishnamoorthy
10. Srividhya K Arjun
D/o. Late Dr.R.Krishnamoorthy

11. K.Venkataraman
D/o. Late Dr.R.Krishnamoorthy
Respondents 7 to 11 are
residing at No.7/2,
Besant Nagar, Kalakshetra Colony,
Cauvery Street, Thiruvanmiyur Village,
Velachery Taluk.
Page No2/.131
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 04:40:03 pm )

O.S.A.No.108 of 2024 and connected appeals
12. Geetha Nagarajan
D/o. Late R.Venkitapathy
No.56, Venkatanarayana Road
HILL (CREST), 1A, First Floor, T Nagar,
Chennai-600 017.
13. V.Jayashree
D/o. Late R.Venkitapathy
W/o. S.Vaithyanathan
Dinamalar, 1842, Trivandram Road,
Vanarpettai
Tirunelveli-627 003.
14. Janani Venkitapathy
D/o. Venkitapathy
No.7/4, Bhavani Apartment,
Soundarajan Street, T.Nagar,
Chennai-600 017.
Respondents
O.S.A.No.109 of 2024
CNR:{HCMA011149472024}
R.Sathyamurthy
Partner-Dinamalar
New No.23/4, Old No.12/4, Kanagasri Nagar,
Cathedral Road,
Chennai-600 086.
Appellant
Vs
Dr.R.Krishnamurthy (Deceased)
Partner-Dinamalar,
No.39, Whites Road,
Chennai – 600 014.
1. K.Rajalakshmi
W/o.Late Dr.R.Krishnamurthy
No.T 7/1 and 2, Cauvery Salai,
Besant Nagar, Chennai-600 090.
Page No3/.131
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 04:40:03 pm )

O.S.A.No.108 of 2024 and connected appeals
2. K.Ramasubbu
S/o.Late Dr.R.Krishnamurthy,
No.T 7/1 and 2, Cauvery Salai,
Besant Nagar, Chennai-600 090.
3. K.Venkataraman,
D/o.Late Dr.R.Krishnamurthy,
5th Main Road, Agathuyar Nagar,
Navarkulam, Pondicherry-605 008.
Dr.R.Venkitapathy (Deceased)
Partner-Dinamalar,
No.G-9, Parsn Paradise,
109, G.N.Chetty Road,
T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017.
4. Dr.R.Lakshmipathy
Partner-Dinamalar,
No.39, Whites Road, Chennai-600014.
R.Subbulakshmi (Deceased)
W/o.R.Raghavan
5. R.Ramasubbu
S/o.R.Raghavan
6. R.Gopalji
S/o.R.Raghavan
Respondents 5 and 6 residing
at 1st Floor, Mercury Apartments,
42A, Pantheon Road, Egmore,
Chennai-600 008.
7. V.Jayashree
W/o.S.Vaithyanathan,
Residing at No.5/10,
Peratchi Amman Koil Street,
Vanarpettai, Palayamkottai,
Tirunelveli-627 003.
8. Krishnammal alias Geetha
W/o.K.Nagarajan,
No.56, Venkatanarayan Road
Page No4/.131
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 04:40:03 pm )

O.S.A.No.108 of 2024 and connected appeals
HILL (CREST) 1A, First Floor, T.Nagar,
Chennai-600 017.
9. V.Janani
W/o.Venkata Sivasamy
No.7/4, Soundarajan Street, 1st Floor,
(Back Side) T.Nagar, Chennai-600 017.
Respondents
O.S.A.No.113 of 2024
CNR:{HCMA011156732024}
Krishnammal alias Geetha
W/o.K.Nagarajan,
No.56, Venkatanarayana Road,
“HILL CREST”, 1-A, First Floor,
T.Nagar
Chennai-600 017
Appellant
Vs
R.Krishnamurthy (Deceased)
Partner-Dinamalar,
No.39, Whites Road,
Chennai – 600 014.
1. Dr.R.Lakshmipathy,
Partner-Dinamalar,
No.39, Whites Road,
Chennai-600 014.
2. K.Rajalakshmi
W/o.Late Dr.R.Krishnamurthy,
No.T 7/1 and 2, Cauvery Salai,
Kalakshetra Colony, Besant Nagar,
Chennai-600 090.
3. K.Ramasubbu
S/o.Late Dr.R.Krishnamurthy,
No.T 7/1 and 2, Cauvery Salai,
Kalakshetra Colony, Besant Nagar,
Chennai-600 090.
Page No5/.131
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 04:40:03 pm )

O.S.A.No.108 of 2024 and connected appeals
4. K.Venkataraman,
S/o.Late Dr.R.Krishnamurthy,
5th Main Road, Agathiyar Nagar
Navarkulam, Pondicherry-605 008

Dr.R.Venkitapathy (Deceased)
Partner-Dinamalar,
No.G-9, Parsn Paradise,
109, G.N.Chetty Road,
T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017.
5. R.Sathiamurthy
Partner-Dinamalar
G-9 Parsn Paradise
109, G.N Chetty Road, T.Nagar
Chennai-600 017
R.Raghavan (Deceased)
Partner-Dinamalar,
st
1 Floor, Mercury Apartments,
42-A, Pantheon Road,
Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.
R.Subbulakshmi (Deceased)
W/o.R.Raghavan
6. R.Ramasubbu
S/o.R.Raghavan
No.24 Birds Road, Cantonment
Tiruchirapalli-620 001
7. R.Gopalji
S/o.R.Raghavan
Residing at 1st Floor,
Mercury Apartments,
42-A, Pantheon Road, Egmore,
Chennai-600 008.
8. V.Jayashree
W/o.S.Vaithyanathan
Page No6/.131
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 04:40:03 pm )

O.S.A.No.108 of 2024 and connected appeals
Residing at No.5/10, Peratchi
Amman Koil Street, Vanarpettai
Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli-627 003
9. V.Janani
W/o. Venkata Sivasamy
7/4, Soundarajan Street, 1st Floor
(Back Side), T.Nagar
Chennai-600 017
Respondents
O.S.A.No. 114 of 2024
CNR:{HCMA011149442024}
R.Sathyamurthy
Partner-Dinamalar,
No.G-9, Parsn Paradise,
109, G.N.Chetty Road, T.Nagar,
Chennai-600 017
Appellant
Vs
Dr.R.Krishnamurthy (Deceased)
1. Dr.R.Lakshmipathy
Partner-Dinamalar
No.39, Whites Road
Chennai-600 014.
2. K.Rajalakshmi
W/o. Late R.Krishnamurthy
No.T 7/1 and 2, Cauvery Salai,
Kalakshetra Colony, Besant Nagar
Chennai-600 090.
3. K.Ramasubbu
S/o.Late Dr.R.Krishnamurthy,
No.T 7/1 and 2, Cauvery Salai,
Kalakshetra Colony, Besant Nagar,
Chennai-600 090
Page No7/.131
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 04:40:03 pm )

O.S.A.No.108 of 2024 and connected appeals
4. K.Venkataraman
S/o. Late R.Krishnamurthy,
5th Main Road, Agathiyar Nagar,
Navarkulam, Pondicherry-605 008.
Dr.R.Venkitapathy (Deceased)
R.Raghavan (Deceased)
R.Subbulakshmi (Deceased)
W/o.R.Raghavan
5. R.Ramasubbu
S/o.R.Raghavan
6. R.Gopalji
S/o.R.Raghavan
Residing at 1st Floor,
Mercury Apartments,
42-A, Pantheon Road, Egmore,
Chennai - 600 008.
7. V.Jayashree,
W/o.S.Vaithyanathan
Residing at No.5/10, Peratchi Amman
Koil Street,
Vanarpettai, Palayamkottai
Tirunelveli 627 003.
8. Krishnammal alias Geetha,
W/o. K.Nagarajan,
No.56, Venkatanarayana Road,
“HILL” (CREST) 1A, First Floor, T.Nagar,
Chennai-600 017.
9. V.Janani
W/o.Venkata Sivasamy,
7/4, Soundarajan Street, 1st Floor,
(Back Side), T.Nagar, Chennai-600 017
Respondents
Page No8/.131
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 04:40:03 pm )

O.S.A.No.108 of 2024 and connected appeals
O.S.A.No.121 of 2024
CNR:{HCMA011149462024}
R.Sathyamurthy
Partner – Dinamalar
New No 23/4, Old No 12/4,
Kanagasri Nagar, Cathedral Road,
Chennai-600 086.
Appellant
Vs
1. Dr.R.Lakshmipathy
Partner-Dinamalar,
No.39, Whites Road
Chennai-600 014
Dr.R.Venkitapathy (Deceased)
Partner-Dinamalar,
No.G-9, Parsn Paradise,
109, G.N.Chetty Road,
T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017.
Dr.R.Krishnamurthy (Deceased)
Partner-Dinamalar,
No.39, Whites Road,
Chennai – 600 014.
Mrs.R.Subbu Lakshmi (Deceased)
W/o.R.Raghavan
2. Mr.R.Ramasubbu
S/o.R.Raghavan
3.Mr.R.Gopalji
S/o.R.Raghavan
Respondents 2 and 3 are
Residing at 1st Floor, Mercury Apartments,
No.42-A, Pantheon Road, Egmore,
Chennai-600 008.
Page No9/.131
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 04:40:03 pm )

O.S.A.No.108 of 2024 and connected appeals
4.K.Rajalakshmi
W/o. Dr.R.Krishnamurthy,
No. T 7/2, Cauvery Salai, Kalakshetra Colony
Besant Nagar, Chennai 600 090
5. K.Ramasubbu
S/o.Dr.R.Krishnamurthy
No.T 7/2, Cauvery Salai, Kalakshetra Colony,
Besant Nagar, Chennai 600 090.
6. N.Krishnakumari
D/o.Late Dr.R.Krishamoorthy
New Door No.17, Sundararajan Street,
Flat No.2 C, Second Floor
Karthik Deve Apartment, Abiramapuram,
Chennai.
7. Srividhya K.Arjun,
D/o. Late Dr.R.Krishnamoorthy,
Old No.34, New No.70, II Main Road,
Keerthana Apartments, Flat G, R.A.Puram
Chennai 600 028.
8. K.Venkataraman,
S/o. Late.Dr.R.Krishnamoorthy,
5th Main Road, Agathiyar Nagar,
Navarkulam, Pondicherry 605 008.
9. Mrs.V.Jayashree
W/o S.Vaidhyanathan
Residing at No.5/10, Peratchi Amman Koil
Street
Vannarpettai, Palayamkottai
Tirunelveli-627 003.
10. Mrs.Krishnammal alias Geetha
W/o Mr.K.Nagarajan,
No.56, Venkatnarayana Road,
“HILL” (CREST), 1-A, First Floor, T.Nagar,
Chennai-600 017.
11. Mrs.V.Janani
W/o Mr.Venkatesh Sivasamy
Page No10/.131
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 04:40:03 pm )

O.S.A.No.108 of 2024 and connected appeals
No.7/4, Soundararajan Street, 1st Floor
(Back Side), T.Nagar, Chennai-600 017.
Respondents
O.S.A.No.135 of 2024
CNR:{HCMA011156352024}
Geetha Nagarajan
D/o. Late R.Venkitapathy
No.56, Venkatanarayana Road,
“HILL CREST” 1-A, First Floor,
T.Nagar Chennai 600 017.
Appellant
Vs
R.Raghavan (Deceased)
Partner-Dinamalar,
S/o.T.V.Ramasubbiyer,
st
1 Floor, Mercury Apartments,
42-A, Pantheon Road,
Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.
R.Subbulakshmi (Deceased)
W/o.R.Raghavan
1. R.Ramasubbu
S/o. Late R.Raghavan
Residing at No.24, Birds Road,
Cantonment, Tiruchirapalli 620 001.
2. R.R.Gopaljee
S/o. Late R.Raghavan
No.4/11, Mc Nicholas, 4th Lane,
Chetpet, Chennai 600 031.
Dr.R.Venkitapathy (Deceased)
Partner-Dinamalar,
No.G-9, Parsn Paradise,
109, G.N.Chetty Road,
Page No11/.131
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 04:40:03 pm )

O.S.A.No.108 of 2024 and connected appeals
T.Nagar, Chennai – 17.
Dr.R.Krishnamoorthy (Deceased)
Partner-Dinamalar,
No.219, Anna Salai,
Chennai – 600 002.
3. Dr.R.Lakshmipathy
Partner-Dinamalar
No.219, Anna Salai,
Chennai 600 002.
4. R.Sathyamurthy
Partner Dinamalar,
No.G-9, Parsn Paradise
109, G.N.Chetty Road, T.Nagar,
Chennai 600 017.
5. Hon’ble Mr.Justice T.Somasundaram (Retd)
Presiding Arbitrator,
No.1/1688, 15th Street, H Block
Anna Nagar, Chennai 600 040.
6. Hon’ble Mr.Justice R.Jayasimha Babu (Retd)
Arbitrator,
612, RMV Extension
2nd Stage, 3rd Block, Bangalore 560 003.
7. Hon’ble Mr.Justice S.S.Subramani (Retd)
Arbitrator
Plot No.2, Lakshmi Apartments,
No. 28/481/2, Sasta Nagar, Thiruvambadi
Trichur-25, Kerala
8. K.Rajalakshmi
W/o. Late Dr.R.Krishnamoorthy
9. K.Ramasubbu
S/o. Late Dr.R.Krishnamoorthy
10. N.Krishnakumari
Page No12/.131
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 04:40:03 pm )

O.S.A.No.108 of 2024 and connected appeals
D/o. Late Dr.R.Krishnamoorthy
11. Vidhya K.Arjun
D/o. Late Dr.R.Krishnamoorthy
12. K.Venkataraman
D/o. Late Dr.R.Krishnamoorthy
Respondents 8 to 12 are residing at No.7/2,
Besant Nagar,
Kalakshetra Colony, Cauvery Street,
Thiruvanmiyur Village, Velachery Taluk.
13. V.Jayashree,
D/o. Late R.Venkitapathy
W/o. S.Vaithyanathan
Dinamalar, 1842, Trivandram Road
Vanarpettai, Tirunelveli 627 003.
14. Janani Venkitapathy
D/o. Venkitapathy
No.7/4, Bhavani Apartment,
Soundarajan Street, T.Nagar,
Chennai 600 017.
Respondents
O.S.A.No.138 of 2024
CNR:{HCMA011162312024}
Krishnammal alias Geetha
W/o. K.Nagarajan
No.56, Venkatanarayana Road,
“HILL CREST”, 1-A, First Floor,
T.Nagar Chennai-600 017
Appellant
Vs
Dr.R.Krishnamurthy (Deceased),
Partner-Dinamalar,
Page No13/.131
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 04:40:03 pm )

O.S.A.No.108 of 2024 and connected appeals
No.39, Whites Road,
Chennai – 600 014.
1. K.Rajalakshmi
W/o. Late R.Krishnamurthy,
No.T 7/1 and 2, Cauvery Salai
Besant Nagar, Chennai-600 090.
2. K.Ramasubbu
S/o. Late R.Krishnamurthy
No.T 7/1 and 2, Cauvery Salai
Besant Nagar, Chennai-600 090
3. K.Venkataraman
D/o. Late R.Krishnamurthy,
5th Main Road, Agathiyar Nagar,
Navarkulam, Pondicherry-605 008
Dr.R.Venkitapathy (Deceased)
Partner-Dinamalar,
No.G-9, Parsn Paradise,
109, G.N.Chetty Road,
T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017.
4.Dr. R.Lakshmipathy
Partner-Dinamalar
No.39, Whites Road
Chennai-600 014.
5. R.Sathyamurthy
Partner-Dinamalar
New No.23/4, Old No.12/4,
Kanagasri Nagar, Cathedral Road
Chennai-600 086.
R.Subbulakshmi (Deceased)
W/o.R.Raghavan
6. R.Ramasubbu
Page No14/.131
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 04:40:03 pm )

O.S.A.No.108 of 2024 and connected appeals
S/o.R.Raghavan

7. R.Gopalji
S/o.R.Raghavan
Respondents 6 and 7 are residing
at 1st Floor,
Mercury Apartments,
42-A, Pantheon Road, Egmore,
Chennai-600 008.

8. V.Jayashree,
W/o.S.Vaithyanathan,
Residing at No.5/10,
Peratchi Amman Koil Street,
Vanarpettai, Palayamkottai.
Tirunelveli-627 003.
9. V.Janani
W/o.Venkata Sivasamy,
No.7/4, Soundarajan Street, 1st Floor
(Back Side), T.Nagar, Chennai-600 017
Respondents
O.S.A.No.140 of 2024
CNR:{HCMA011162322024}
Krishnammal alias Geetha
W/o. Mr.K.Nagarajan
No.56, Venkatnarayana Road,
“HILL CREST”, 1-A, First Floor,
T.Nagar Chennai 600 017.
Appellant
Vs
1. Dr.R.Lakshmipathy
Partner – Dinamalar,
No.39, Whites Road, Chennai 600 014.
Dr.R.Venkitapathy (Deceased)
Page No15/.131
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 04:40:03 pm )

O.S.A.No.108 of 2024 and connected appeals
Partner-Dinamalar,
No.G-9, Parsn Paradise,
109, G.N.Chetty Road,
T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017.
Dr.R.Krishnamurthy (Deceased)
Partner-Dinamalar, No.39, Whites Road,
Chennai – 600 014.
R.Subbulakshmi (Deceased)
W/o.R.Raghavan

2. R.Sathyamurthy
Partner-Dinamalar
New No.23/4, O.No.12/4,
Kanagasri Nagar,
Cathedral Road, Chennai 600 086.
3. R.Ramasubbu
S/o.R.Raghavan
4. R.Gopalji
S/o. R.Raghavan
Respondents 3 and 4 are residing
st
at 1 Floor
Mercury Apartments,
42-A, Pantheon Road, Egmore, Chennai-8

5. K.Rajalakshmi
W/o. Late Dr.R.Krishnamoorthy
No.T 7/2, Cauvery Salai
Kalashetra Colony, Besant Nagar
Chennai 600 090.
6. K.Ramasubbu
S/o. Late.Dr.R.Krishnamoorthy,
No.T 7/2, Cauvery Salai
Kalashetra Colony, Besant Nagar
Chennai 600 090.
7. N.Krishnakumari
D/o. Late.Dr.R.Krishnamoorthy,
New No.17, Sundarajan Street,
Page No16/.131
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 04:40:03 pm )

O.S.A.No.108 of 2024 and connected appeals
Flat No.2C,
Second Floor, Karthik Dev Apartment
Abiramapuram, Chennai
8. Sri Vidhya K.Arjun
D/o. Late.Dr.R.Krishnamoorthy,
Old No.34, N.No.70, II Main Road
Keerthana Apartment, Flat G,
R.A.Puram, Chennai-28
9. K.Venkataraman
D/o. Late.Dr.R.Krishnamoorthy,
5th Main Road, Agathiyar Nagar,
Navarkulam, Pondicherry 605 008.
10.V.Jayashree
W/o.S.Vaithyanathan,
No.5/10, Peratchi Amman Koil Street,
Vanarpettai, Palayamkottai,
Tirunelveli 627 003.
11.V.Janani
W/o.Venkata Sivasamy
No.7/4, Soundarajan Street,
1st Floor (Back Side)
T. Nagar, Chennai 600 017
Respondents
O.S.A.No.142 of 2024
CNR:{HCMA011156342024}
Geetha Nagarajan
D/o. Late.R.Venkitapathy
No.56, Venkatnarayana Road,
“HILL CREST”, 1-A, First Floor,
T. Nagar, Chennai 600 017.
Appellant
Vs
R.Subbulakshmi (Deceased)
Page No17/.131
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 04:40:03 pm )

O.S.A.No.108 of 2024 and connected appeals
W/o.Late R.Raghavan
1. R.Ramasubbu
S/o.Late R.Ragahavan,
residing at No.24, Birds Road,
Cantonment, Tiruchirapalli-620 001.
2. R.R.Gopaljee
S/o.Late R.Raghavan,
No.4/11, Mc Nichols 4th Lane,
Chetpet, Chennai 600 031.
Dr.R.Venkitapathy (Deceased)
Partner-Dinamalar,
No.G-9, Parsn Paradise,
109, G.N.Chetty Road,
T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017.
Dr.R.Krishnamurthy (Deceased)
Partner-Dinamalar,
No.219, Anna Salai,
Chennai – 600 002.
3. Dr.R.Lakshmipathy,
Partner-Dinamalar,
No.219, Anna Salai,
Chennai-600 002.
4. R.Sathyamurthy,
Partner-Dinamalar,
G-9, Parsn Paradise
109, G.N.Chetty Road, T.Nagar,
Chennai 600 017,
5. K.Rajalakshmi
W/o.Late.Dr.R.Krishnamoorthy
6. K.Ramasubbu
S/o.Late.Dr.R.Krishnamoorthy
7. N.Krishnakumari
D/o.Late. Dr.R.Krishnamoorthy
Page No18/.131
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 04:40:03 pm )

O.S.A.No.108 of 2024 and connected appeals
8. Srividhya K.Arjun
D/o.Late. Dr.R.Krishnamoorthy

9. K.Venkataraman
S/o.Late.Dr.R.Krishnamoorthy
Respondents 5 to 9 are residing at
No.7/2, Besant Nagar
Kalakshetra Colony, Kaveri Street,
Thiruvanmiyur Village, Velachery Taluk.
10. V.Jayashree
D/o.Late R,Venkitapathy
Dinamalar, 1842 Trivandrum Road
Vanarpettai, Tirunelveli-627 003.
11. Mrs.Janani
D/o.Late R.Venkitapathy,
No.7/4, Bhavani Apartment,
Soundararajan Street, T.Nagar,
Chennai-600 017.
Respondents
O.S.A.No.144 of 2024
CNR:{HCMA011149482024}
R.Sathyamurthy
Partner-Dinamalar
No.G-9 Parsn Paradise,
109, GN Chetty Road, T.Nagar
Chennai-600 017.
Appellant
Vs
R.Subbulakshmi (Deceased)
W/o.R.Raghavan
1. R.Ramasubbu
S/o.Late R.Raghavan,
Page No19/.131
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 04:40:03 pm )

O.S.A.No.108 of 2024 and connected appeals
residing at No.24, Birds Road,
Cantonment, Tiruchirapalli-620 001.
2. R.R.Gopaljee
S/o.Late R.Raghavan,
No.4/11, Mc Nichols 4th Lane,
Chetpet, Chennai-600 031.

Dr.R.Venkitapathy (Deceased)
Partner-Dinamalar
Dr.R.Krishnamurthy (Deceased)
Partner-Dinamalar
3. Dr.R.Lakshmipathy
Partner-Dinamalar
No.219, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002
4. K.Rajalakshmi
W/o.Late.Dr.R.Krishnamoorthy
5. K.Ramasubbu
S/o.Late.Dr.R.Krishnamoorthy
6. N.Krishnakumari
D/o.Late.Dr.R.Krishnamoorthy
7. Srividhya K.Arjun
D/o.Late. Dr.R.Krishnamoorthy

8. K.Venkataraman
S/o.Late.Dr.R.Krishnamoorthy
Respondents 4 to 8 are residing at
No.7/2, Besant Nagar
Kalakshetra Colony, Cauvery Street,
Thiruvanmiyur Village, Velachery Taluk.
9. Geetha Nagarajan,
D/o.Late R.Venkitapathy,
No.56, Venkatanarayana Road,
“HILL” (CREST), IA, First Floor,
T.Nagar, Chennai-600 017
Page No20/.131
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 04:40:03 pm )

O.S.A.No.108 of 2024 and connected appeals
10. V.Jayashree
D/o.R.Venkitapathy,
W/o.S.Vaithyanathan,
Dinamalar, 1842, Trivendram Road,
Vanarpettai, Tirunelveli-627 003.
11. Janani
D/o.Venkitapathy,
No.7/4, Bhavani Apartment,
Soundararajan Street, T.Nagar
Chennai-600 017
Respondents
O.S.A.No.154 of 2025
CNR:{HCMA011191562024}
R.Raghavan (Deceased)
R.Subbulakshmi (Deceased)
1. R.Ramasubbu
S/o. Late.R.Raghavan
2. R.R.Gopalji
S/o.R.Raghavan
1st Floor, Mercury Apartments
42-A, Pantheon Road, Egmore
Chennai 600 008
Appellants
Vs
Dr.R.Krishnamoorthy (Deceased)
1. Dr.R.Lakshmipathy
Partner-Dinamalar
No.39, Whites Road
Chennai 600 014.
2. K.Rajalakshmi
W/o.Late R.Krishnamoorthy
Page No21/.131
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 04:40:03 pm )

O.S.A.No.108 of 2024 and connected appeals
No.7/2, Cauvery Salai
Kalakshetra Colony, Besant Nagar,
Chennai 600 090.
3. K.Ramasubbu
S/o. Late R.Krishnamoorthy,
No.7/2, Cauvery Salai,
Kalakshetra Colony, Besant Nagar,
Chennai 600 090.
4. K.Venkataraman
D/o. Late.Dr.R.Krishnamoorthy
5th Main Road, Agathiyar Nagar,
Navarkulam, Pondicherry 605 008.
R.Venkitapathy (Deceased)
5. R.Sathyamurthy
Partner-Dinamalar,
No.G-9, Parsn Paradise,
109, G.N.Chetty Road, T.Nagar
Chennai-600 017
6. V.Jayashree
W/o. S.Vaithyanathan,
No.5/10, Peratchi Amman Koil Street,
Vannarapettai, Palayamkottai.
Tirunelveli 627 003.
7. Krishnammal @ Geetha
W/o Mr.K.Nagarajan,
No.56, Venkatnarayana Road,
Hill (Crest), 1-A, First Floor, T.Nagar,
Chennai-600 017.
8. V.Janani
W/o Mr.Venkatesh Sivasamy
7/4, Soundarajan Street, 1st Floor
(Back Side), T.Nagar, Chennai-600 017.
Respondents
Page No22/.131
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 04:40:03 pm )

O.S.A.No.108 of 2024 and connected appeals
O.S.A.No.155 of 2025
CNR:{HCMA011191572024}
R.Raghavan (Deceased)
R.Subbulakshmi (Deceased)
1. R.Ramasubbu
S/o. Late R.Raghavan
No.24, Birds Road, Cantonment,
Tiruchirappalli-620 001.
2. R.R.Gopaljee
S/o. Late R.Raghavan,
No.4/11, Mc Nicholos 4th Lane,
Chetpet, Chennai-600 031.
Appellants
Vs
R.Krishnamoorthy (Deceased)
1. R.Lakshmipathy
Partner-Dinamalar,
No.219, Anna Salai,Chennai-600 002.
2. K.Rajalakshmi
W/o. Late Dr.R.Krishnamoorthy,
No.7/1 and 2, Cauvery Salai,
Kalakshetra Colony, Besant Nagar
Chennai 600 090.
3. K.Ramasubbu,
S/o. Late.R.Krishnamoorthy,
No.7/1 and 2, Cauvery Salai,
Kalakshetra Colony, Besant Nagar,
Chennai 600 090.
4. K.Venkataraman
D/o. Late.R.Krishnamoorthy
5th Main Road, Agathiyar Nagar,
Navarkulam, Pondicherry 605 008.
Page No23/.131
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 04:40:03 pm )

O.S.A.No.108 of 2024 and connected appeals
R.Venkitapathy (Deceased)
5. R.Sathyamurthy
Partner-Dinamalar,
No.G-9, Parsn Paradise,
109, G.N.Chetty Road, T.Nagar,
Chennai-600 017.
6. V.Jayashree
D/o. Late R.Venkitapathy,
W/o. S.Vaithyanathan
Peratchi Amman Koil Street,
Vannarapettai,
Palayamkottai,
Tirunelveli-627 003.
7. Krishnammal alias Geetha Nagarajan,
W/o. K.Nagarajan,
No.56, Venkatanarayana Road
Hill (Crest), 1A First Floor, T.Nagar
Chennai 600 017.
8. V.Janani
D/o.R.Venkitapathy
W/o. Venkatesh Sivasamy,
No.7/4, Soundararajan Street,
1st Floor (Back Side), T.Nagar
Chennai 600 017.
Respondents
O.S.A.No.156 of 2025
CNR:{HCMA011191552024}
R.Subblakshmi (Deceased)
W/o. Late R.Raghvan
1. R.Ramasubbu
S/o. Late R.Raghavan
No.24, Birds Road, Cantonment,
Tiruchirappalli-620 001.
Page No24/.131
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 04:40:03 pm )

O.S.A.No.108 of 2024 and connected appeals
2. R.Gopaljee, S/o.Late R.Raghavan
1st Floor, Mercury Apartments,
42-A, Pantheon Road, Egmore,
Chennai 600 008.
Appellants
Vs
1. Dr.R.Lakshmipathy
Partner-Dinamalar
No.39, Whites Road, Chennai-14
R.Venkitapathy (Deceased)
Partner-Dinamalar
Dr.R.Krishnamoorthy (Deceased)
Partner-Dinamalar
2. R.Sathyamurthy
Partner-Dinamalar
N.No.23/4, O.No.12/4, Kanagasri Nagar,
Cathedral Road, Chennai 600 086.
3. K.Rajalakshmi
W/o.Late. Dr.R.Krishnamoorthy
No.T7/2, Cauvery Salai,
Kalashetra Colony,
Besant Nagar, Chennai 600 090.
4. K.Ramasubbu
S/o. Late R.Krishnamoorthy
No.7/2, Besant Nagar, Cauvery Salai,
Kalashetra Colony, Besant Nagar,
Chennai 600 090.
5. N.Krishnakumari,
D/o. Late.Dr. R.Krishnamoorthy,
New No.17, Sundararajan Street,
Flat No.2C,
Second Floor, Karthik Dev Apartment,
Abiramapuram, Chennai
Page No25/.131
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 04:40:03 pm )

O.S.A.No.108 of 2024 and connected appeals
6. Sri Vidhya K.Arjun
D/o. Late.R.Krishnamoorthy,
Old No.34, New No.70, II Main Road,
Keerthana Apartment, Flat G,
R.A.Puram, Chennai 600 028.
7. K.Venkataraman
D/o. Late.R.Krishnamoorthy,
5th Main Road, Agathiyar Nagar,
Navarkulam, Pondicherry 605 008.
8. V.Jayashree
W/o.S.Vaithyanathan
5/10, Peratchi Amman Koil Street,
Vanarpettai, Palayamkottai,
Tirunelveli 607 003.
9. Krishnammal alias Geetha
W/o.K.Nagarajan,
No.56, Venkatnarayana Road,
“HILL” (CREST), 10A First Floor,
T. Nagar
Chennai-600 017.
10. V.Janani
W/o.Venkatesh Sivasamy
No.7/4, Soundararajan Street, 1st Floor
(Back Side), T. Nagar, Chennai-17
Respondents
O.S.A.No.157 of 2025
CNR:{HCMA011191542024}
R.Subbulakshmi (Deceased)
W/o.Late R.Raghavan
1. R.Ramasubbu
S/o. R.Raghavan
No.24, Birds Road, Cantonment,
Tiruchirapalli-620 001.
Page No26/.131
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 04:40:03 pm )

O.S.A.No.108 of 2024 and connected appeals
2. R.Gopalji
S/o.R.Raghavan
1st Floor, Mercury Apartments
42A, Pantheon Road, Egmore,
Chennai-600 008.
Appellants
Vs
R.Krishnamurthy (Deceased)
Partner-Dinamalar,
1. K. Rajalakshmi
W/o. Late R.Krishnamoorthy
No.T 7/1 and 2, Cauvery Salai,
Besant Nagar, Chennai-600 090.

2. K.Ramasubbu
S/o. Late R.Krishnamoorthy,
No.T 7/1 and 2, Cauvery Salai
Besant Nagar, Chennai-600 090.
3. K.Venkataraman
D/o.Late R.Krishnamoorthy,
5th Main Road, Agathiyar Nagar,
Navarkulam, Pondicherry-605 008.
R.Venkitapathy (Deceased)
Partner-Dinamalar
4. R.Lakshmipathy
Partner-Dinamalar
No.39, Whites Road,
Chennai-600 014.
5. R.Sathyamurthy,
Partner-Dinamalar,
New No.23/4, Old No.12/4,
Kanagasri Nagar, Cathedral Road,
Chennai-600 086.
Page No27/.131
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 04:40:03 pm )

O.S.A.No.108 of 2024 and connected appeals
6. V.Jayashree
W/o.S.Vaithyanathan,
5/10, Peratchi Amman Koil Street,
Vanarpettai, Palayam Kottai,
Tirunelveli-607 003.
7. Krishnammal alias Geetha,
W/o.K.Nagarajan,
No.56, Venkatnarayana Road,
“HILL” (CREST), 1A, First Floor
T.Nagar, Chennai-600 017.
8. V.Janani
W/o.Venkatesh Sivasamy,
No.7/4, Soundararajan Street,
1st Floor (Back side) T.Nagar,
Chennai-600 017
Respondents
O.S.A.No.158 of 2025
CNR:{HCMA011191532024}
R.Subblakshmi (Deceased)
W/o.Late R.Rghavan
1. R.Ramasubbu,
S/o. Late R.Raghavan,
No.24, Birds Road, Cantonment,
Tiruchirapalli-620 011.
2. R.R.Gopaljee
S/o. Late R.Raghavan
No.4/11, Mc Nicholas 4th Lane,
Chetpet, Chennai-600 031.
Appellants
Vs
R.Venkitapathy (Deceased)
R.Krishnamoorthy (Deceased)
Page No28/.131
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 04:40:03 pm )

O.S.A.No.108 of 2024 and connected appeals
1. R.Lakshmipathy,
Partner-Dinamalar,
No.219, Anna Salai,
Chennai-600 002.
2. R.Sathyamurthy,
Partner-Dinamalar,
No.G-9, Parsn Paradise,
109, G.N.Chetty Road, T.Nagar,
Chennai-17.
3. K.Rajalakshmi
W/o. Late R.Krishnamoorthy,
No.7/2, Besant Nagar,
Kalakshetra Colony, Kaveri Street,
Thiruvanmiyur Village,
Velachery Taluk.
4. K.Ramasubbu
S/o. Late R.Krishnamoorthy
No.7/2, Besant Nagar,
Kalakshetra Colony, Kaveri Street,
Thiruvanmiyur Village.
Velachery Taluk
5. K.Venkatraman
D/o.Late Dr.R.Krishnamoorthy,
No.7/2, Besant Nagar,
Kalakshetra Colony, Kaveri Street,
Thiruvanmiyur Village,
Velachery Taluk.
6. Geetha Nagarajan,
D/o. Late R.Venkitapathy,
No.56, Venkatanarayana Road,
1A, Hill Crest Apartments, T.Nagar
Chennai-600 017
7. V.Jayashree
D/o. Late R.Venkitapathy,
W/o. S.Vaithyanathan,
Dinamalar, 1842, Trivandrum Road
Vannarapettai, Tirunelveli-627 003.
Page No29/.131
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 04:40:03 pm )

O.S.A.No.108 of 2024 and connected appeals
8. V.Janani
D/o. R.Venkitapathy
No.7/4, Bhavani Apartment
Soundarajan Street, T.Nagar
Chennai-600 017
Respondents
O.S.A.No.159 of 2025
CNR:{HCMA011191582024}
R.Raghavan (Deceased)
R.Subbulakshmi (Deceased)
1. R.Ramasubbu
S/o. Late R.Raghavan
No.24, Birds Road, Cantonment,
Tiruchirappalli-620 001.
2. R.R.Gopaljee
S/o.R.Raghavan
No.4/11, Mc Nicholas 4th Lane
Chetpet, Chennai-600 031.
Appellants
Vs
R.Venkitapathy (Deceased)
R.Krishnamoorthy (Deceased)
1. R.Lakshmipathy
Partner-Dinamalar
No.219, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002
2. R.Sathyamurthy
Partner-Dinamalar
No.G-9, Parsn Paradise
109, G.N.Chetty Road, T.Nagar
Chennai-17
3. Hon’ble Mr.Justice T.Somasundram (Retd.)
Page No30/.131
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 04:40:03 pm )

O.S.A.No.108 of 2024 and connected appeals
Presiding Arbitrator
No.1/1688, 15th Street, H Block
Anna Nagar, Chennai-600 040
4. Hon’ble Mr.Justice R.Jayasimha Babu (Retd.)
Arbitrator,
612, RMV Extension, 2nd Stage,
3rd Block, Bangalore-560 003
5. Hon’ble Mr.Justice S.S.Subramani (Retd.)
Arbitrator
Plot No.2, Lakshmi Apartments,
No.28/481/2, Sasta Nagar, Thiruvambadi
Trichur-25, Kerala.
6. K.Rajalakshmi
W/o. Late R.Krishnamoorthy
No.7/2, Besant Nagar, Kalakshetra Colony
Kaveri Street, Thiruvanmiyur Village,
Velachery Taluk.
7. K.Ramasubbu
S/o.Late R.Krishnamoorthy,
No.7/2, Besant Nagar, Kalakshetra Colony
Kaveri Street, Thiruvanmiyur Village,
Velachery Taluk.
8. K.Venkataraman
D/o.Late R.Krishnamoorthy
No.7/2, Besant Nagar, Kalakshetra Colony,
Kaveri Street, Thiruvanmiyur Village,
Velachery Taluk.
9. Geetha Nagarajan,
D/o.Late R.Venkitapathy,
No.56, Venkatnarayana Road
1A, Hill Crest Apartments, T.Nagar
Chennai-600 017
10. V.Jayashree
Page No31/.131
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 04:40:03 pm )

O.S.A.No.108 of 2024 and connected appeals
D/o.Late R.Venkitapathy
W/o.S.Vaithyanathan
Dinamalar, 1842, Trivandrum Road
Vannarapettai, Tirunelveli-627 003.
11. V.Janani Venkitapathy
D/o.R.Venkitapathy,
No.7/4, Bhavani Apartment
Soundarajan Street, T.Nagar,
Chennai-600017
Respondents
O.S.A.No.160 of 2025
CNR:{HCMA011191592024}
R.Raghavan (Deceased)
R.Subbulakshmi (Deceased)
1. Dr.R.Ramasubbu
S/o. Late R.Raghavan,
No.24, Birds Road, Cantonment,
Tiruchirappalli-620 001
2. R.R.Gopaljee
S/o.R.Raghavan,
No.4/11, Mc Nicholas 4th Lane,
Chetpet, Chennai-600 031.
Appellants
Vs
R.Venkitapathy (Deceased)
R.Krishnamoorthy (Deceased)
1. R.Lakshmipathy
Partner-Dinamalar
No.219, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002
Page No32/.131
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 04:40:03 pm )

O.S.A.No.108 of 2024 and connected appeals
2.R.Sathyamurthy
Partner-Dinamalar
No.G-9, Parsn Paradise
109, G.N.Chetty Road, T.Nagar
Chennai-17
3. Hon’ble Mr.Justice T.Somasundram (Retd.)
Presiding Arbitrator,
No.1/1688, 15th Street, H Block,
Anna Nagar, Chennai-600 040.
4. Hon’ble Mr.Justice R.Jayasimha Babu (Retd.)
Arbitrator,
612, RMV Extension, 2nd Stage, 3rd Block
Bangalore-560 003.
5. Hon’ble Mr.Justice S.S.Subramani (Retd.)
Arbitrator
Plot No.2, Lakshmi Apartments,
No.28/481/2, Sasta Nagar, Thiruvambadi
Trichur-25, Kerala.
6. K.Rajalakshmi
W/o. Late R.Krishnamoorthy
No.7/2, Besant Nagar, Kalakshetra Colony,
Kaveri Street, Thiruvanmiyur Village.
Velachery Taluk.
7. K.Ramasubbu,
S/o.Late Dr.R.Krishnamoorthy
No.7/2, Besant Nagar, Kalakshetra Colony,
Kaveri Street, Thiruvanmiyur Village ,
Velachery Taluk
8. K.Venkataraman
D/o.Late R.Krishnamoorthy
No.7/2, Besant Nagar, Kalakshetra Colony,
Kaveri Street, Thiruvanmiyur Village,
Velachery Taluk.
Page No33/.131
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 04:40:03 pm )

O.S.A.No.108 of 2024 and connected appeals
9. Geetha Nagarajan,
D/o.Late R.Venkitapathy,
No.56, Venkatnarayana Road,
1A, Hill Crest Apartments, T.Nagar,
Chennai-600 017.
10. V.Jayashree,
D/o.Late R.Venkitapathy,
W/o.S.Vaithyanathan,
Dinamalar, 1842 Trivandrum Road,
Vannarapettai, Tirunelveli-627 003.
11. V.Janani Venkitapathy
D/o.R.Venkitapathy
No.7/4, Bhavani Apartment,
Soundarajan Street, T.Nagar, Chennai-600 017
Respondents
Prayer in O.S.A.No.108 of 2024 : The Original Side Appeal is filed under
Order XXXVI Rule 9 of the Original Side Rules, read with Clause 15 of the
Amended Letters Patent, 1865, and Section 37 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking to set aside the common order and decree dated
10.08.2023 passed in O.P.No.269 of 2014 on the file of this Court, and
consequently to dismiss the Original Petition.
Prayer in O.S.A.No.109 of 2024: The Original Side Appeal is filed under
Order XXXVI Rule 9 of the Original Side Rules, read with Clause 15 of the
Amended Letters Patent, 1865, and Section 37 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking to set aside the common order and decree dated
10.08.2023 in O.P.No.863 of 2018 on the file of this Court and consequently
restore the interim Arbitral Award dated 29.09.2018.
Prayer in O.S.A.No.113 of 2024: The Original Side Appeal is filed under
Order XXXVI Rule 9 of the Original Side Rules, read with Clause 15 of the
Amended Letters Patent, 1865, and Section 37 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking to set aside the order dated 10.08.2023 in
O.P.No.391 of 2017 and allow the present appeal.
Prayer in O.S.A.No.114 of 2024: The Original Side Appeal is filed under
Order XXXVI Rule 9 of the Original Side Rules, read with Clause 15 of the
Amended Letters Patent, 1865, and Section 37 of the Arbitration and
Page No34/.131
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 04:40:03 pm )

O.S.A.No.108 of 2024 and connected appeals
Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking to set aside the common order and decree dated
10.08.2023 in O.P.No.391 of 2017 on the file of this Court.
Prayer in O.S.A.No.121 of 2024: The Original Side Appeal is filed under
Order XXXVI Rule 9 of the Original Side Rules, read with Clause 15 of the
Amended Letters Patent, 1865, and Section 37 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking to set aside the common order and decree dated
10.08.2023 in O.P.No.864 of 2018 on the file of this Court, and consequently
restore the interim Arbitral award dated 29.09.2018.
Prayer in O.S.A.No.135 of 2024: The Original Side Appeal is filed under
Order XXXVI Rule 9 of the Original Side Rules, read with Clause 15 of the
Amended Letters Patent, 1865, and Section 37 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking to set aside the common judgment and decree to
the extent the Award has been set aside by this Court dated 10.08.2023 in
O.P.No.269 of 2014.
Prayer in O.S.A.No.138 of 2024: The Original Side Appeal is filed under
Order XXXVI Rule 9 of the Original Side Rules, read with Clause 15 of the
Amended Letters Patent, 1865, and Section 37 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking to set aside the common judgment and decree
dated 10.08.2023 in O.P.No.863 of 2018.
Prayer in O.S.A.No.140 of 2024: The Original Side Appeal is filed under
Order XXXVI Rule 9 of the Original Side Rules, read with Clause 15 of the
Amended Letters Patent, 1865, and Section 37 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking to set aside the common judgment and decree
dated 10.08.2023 in O.P.No.864 of 2018 and allow the present Appeal.
Prayer in O.S.A.No.142 of 2024: The Original Side Appeal is filed under
Order XXXVI Rule 9 of the Original Side Rules, read with Clause 15 of the
Amended Letters Patent, 1865, and Section 37 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking to set aside the common judgement and decree
passed by this Court Court dated 10.08.2023 in O.P.No.40 of 2019 and allow the
present appeal.
Page No35/.131
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 04:40:03 pm )

O.S.A.No.108 of 2024 and connected appeals
Prayer in O.S.A.No.144 of 2024: The Original Side Appeal is filed under
Order XXXVI Rule 9 of the Original Side Rules, read with Clause 15 of the
Amended Letters Patent, 1865, and Section 37 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking to set aside the common order and decree dated
10.08.2023 in O.P.No.40 of 2019 on the file of this Court and consequently
restore the Interim Arbitral Award dated 29.09.2018.
Prayer in O.S.ANo.154 of 2025: The Original Side Appeal is filed under Order
XXXVI Rule 9 of the Original Side Rules, read with Clause 15 of the Amended
Letters Patent, 1865, and Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,
1996, seeking to set aside the common fair and decretal order dated 10.08.2023
passed in O.P.No.350 of 2017 on the file of this Court by allowing this O.S.A.
Prayer in O.S.A.No.155 of 2025: The Original Side Appeal is filed under
Order XXXVI Rule 9 of the Original Side Rules, read with Clause 15 of the
Amended Letters Patent, 1865, and Section 37 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking to set aside the common fair and decretal order
dated 10.08.2023 passed in O.P.No.391 of 2017 on the file of this Court by
allowing this O.S.A.
Prayer in O.S.A.No.156 of 2025: The Original Side Appeal is filed under
Order XXXVI Rule 9 of the Original Side Rules, read with Clause 15 of the
Amended Letters Patent, 1865, and Section 37 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking to set aside the common fair and decretal order
dated 10.08.2023 passed in O.P.No.864 of 2018 on the file of this Court.
Prayer in O.S.A.No.157 of 2025: The Original Side Appeal is filed under
Order XXXVI Rule 9 of the Original Side Rules, read with Clause 15 of the
Amended Letters Patent, 1865, and Section 37 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking to set aside the common fair and decretal order
dated 10.08.2023 passed in O.P.No.863 of 2018 on the file of this Court.
Prayer in O.S.A.No.158 of 2025: The Original Side Appeal is filed under
Order XXXVI Rule 9 of the Original Side Rules, read with Clause 15 of the
Amended Letters Patent, 1865, and Section 37 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking to set aside the common fair and decretal order
dated 10.08.2023 passed in O.P.No.40 of 2019 on the file of this Court.
Page No36/.131
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 04:40:03 pm )

O.S.A.No.108 of 2024 and connected appeals
Prayer in O.S.A.No.159 of 2025: The Original Side Appeal is filed under
Order XXXVI Rule 9 of the Original Side Rules, read with Clause 15 of the
Amended Letters Patent, 1865, and Section 37 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking to set aside the common fair and decretal order
dated 10.08.2023 passed in O.P.No.122 of 2014 on the file of this Court by
allowing this Original Side Appeal.
Prayer in O.S.A.No.160 of 2025: The Original Side Appeal is filed under
Order XXXVI Rule 9 of the Original Side Rules, read with Clause 15 of the
Amended Letters Patent, 1865, and Section 37 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking to set aside the common fair and decretal order
dated 10.08.2023 passed in O.P.No.269 of 2014 on the file of this Court.
OSA.NO.108 OF 2024
FOR APPELLANT : MR.P.S.RAMAN, SENIOR COUNSEL
FOR MR. P. GIRIDHARAN AND
MR.H.SIDDARTH

FOR RESPONDENTS : MRS.CHITRA SAMPATH, SENIOR COUNSEL
FOR Mr.T.S.BASKARAN FOR R1 AND R2.
MR.ABDUL SALEEM, SENIOR COUNSEL
FOR MR.M.VIJAYA MEHANATH FOR R3

MR.A.L.SOMAYAJI, SENIOR COUNSEL
FOR MR.S.ELAM BHARATHI FOR R7, R8
AND R11

MR.VIJAY NARAYAN, SENIOR COUNSEL
FOR MR. PRASAD VIJAYA KUMAR FOR R12.
MR.S.SHYAM KUMAR FOR R13
M/S.R.RACHANA FOR R14
R9 AND R10 –NO APPEARANCE.
Page No37/.131
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 04:40:03 pm )

O.S.A.No.108 of 2024 and connected appeals
OSA.NO.109 OF 2024
FOR APPELLANT : MR.P.S.RAMAN, SENIOR COUNSEL
FOR MR.P.GIRIDHARAN AND
MR.H.SIDDARTH

FOR RESPONDENTS :MRS.CHITRA SAMPATH, SENIOR COUNSEL
FOR MR.T.S.BASKARAN FOR R5 AND R6.
MR.ABDUL SALEEM, SENIOR COUNSEL
FOR MR.M.VIJAYA MEHANATH FOR R4
MR.A.L.SOMAYAJI, SENIOR COUNSEL
FOR MR.S.ELAM BHARATHI FOR R1 TO R3,

MR.VIJAY NARAYAN, SENIOR COUNSEL
FOR MR.PRASAD VIJAYA KUMAR FOR R8.
MR.S.SHYAM KUMAR FOR R7
M/S.R.RACHANA FOR R9
OSA.NO.113 OF 2024
FOR APPELLANT : MR.VIJAY NARAYAN, SENIOR COUNSEL
FOR MR.PRASAD VIJAYA KUMAR
FOR RESPONDENTS: MR.ABDUL SALEEM, SENIOR COUNSEL
FOR Mr.M.VIJAYA MEHANATH FOR R1

MR.A.L.SOMAYAJI, SENIOR COUNSEL
FOR MR.S.ELAM BHARATHI FOR R2 TO R4,

MRS.CHITRA SAMPATH, SENIOR COUNSEL
FOR MR.T.S.BASKARAN FOR R6 AND R7.

MR.P.S.RAMAN, SENIOR COUNSEL
FOR MR.P.GIRIDHARAN AND
MR.H.SIDDARTH FOR R5
MR.S.SHYAM KUMAR FOR R8
M/S.R.RACHANA FOR R9
Page No38/.131
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 04:40:03 pm )

O.S.A.No.108 of 2024 and connected appeals
OSA.NO.114 OF 2024
FOR APPELLANT : MR.P.S.RAMAN, SENIOR COUNSEL
FOR MR.P. GIRIDHARAN AND
MR.H.SIDDARTH
FOR RESPONDENTS : MR.ABDUL SALEEM, SENIOR COUNSEL
FOR MR.M.VIJAYA MEHANATH FOR R1
MR.A.L.SOMAYAJI, SENIOR COUNSEL
FOR MR.S.ELAM BHARATHI
FOR R2, R3, AND R4
MRS.CHITRA SAMPATH, SENIOR COUNSEL
FOR MR.T.S.BASKARAN FOR R5 AND R6.
MR.VIJAY NARAYAN, SENIOR COUNSEL
FOR MR.PRASAD VIJAYA KUMAR FOR R8.
MR.S.SHYAM KUMAR FOR R7
M/S.R.RACHANA FOR R9
OSA.NO.121 OF 2024
FOR APPELLANT : MR.P.S.RAMAN, SENIOR COUNSEL
FOR MR.P.GIRIDHARAN AND
MR.H.SIDDARTH
FOR RESPONDENTS : MR.ABDUL SALEEM, SENIOR COUNSEL
FOR MR.M.VIJAYA MEHANATH FOR R1

MRS.CHITRA SAMPATH, SENIOR COUNSEL
FOR MR. T.S.BASKARAN FOR R2 AND R3.
MR.A.L.SOMAYAJI, SENIOR COUNSEL
FOR MR.S.ELAM BHARATHI
FOR R4, R5, AND R8
Page No39/.131
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 04:40:03 pm )

O.S.A.No.108 of 2024 and connected appeals
R6 AND R7-NO APPEARANCE
MR. VIJAY NARAYAN, SENIOR COUNSEL
FOR MR.PRASAD VIJAYA KUMAR
FOR R10.
MR.S.SHYAM KUMAR FOR R9
M/S.R.RACHANA FOR R11
OSA.NO.135 OF 2024
FOR APPELLANT : MR.VIJAY NARAYAN, SENIOR COUNSEL
FOR MR.PRASAD VIJAYA KUMAR

FOR RESPONDENTS : MRS.CHITRA SAMPATH, SENIOR COUNSEL
FOR MR.T.S.BASKARAN FOR R1 AND R2.
MR.ABDUL SALEEM, SENIOR COUNSEL
FOR MR.M.VIJAYA MEHANATH FOR R3
MR.A.L.SOMAYAJI, SENIOR COUNSEL
FOR MR.S.ELAM BHARATHI
FOR R8, R9, AND R12
MR.P.S.RAMAN, SENIOR COUNSEL
FOR MR.P.GIRIDHARAN AND
MR.H.SIDDARTH FOR R4
R10 AND R11-NO APPEARANCE
MR.S.SHYAM KUMAR FOR R13
M/S.R.RACHANA FOR R14
Page No40/.131
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 04:40:03 pm )

O.S.A.No.108 of 2024 and connected appeals
OSA.NO.138 OF 2024
FOR APPELLANT : MR.VIJAY NARAYAN, SENIOR COUNSEL
FOR MR.PRASAD VIJAYA KUMAR

FOR RESPONDENTS : MR.A.L.SOMAYAJI, SENIOR COUNSEL
FOR MR.S.ELAM BHARATHI FOR R1 TO R3

MR.ABDUL SALEEM, SENIOR COUNSEL
FOR MR.M.VIJAYA MEHANATH FOR R4
MRS.CHITRA SAMPATH, SENIOR COUNSEL
FOR MR.T.S.BASKARAN FOR R6 AND R7.
MR.P.S.RAMAN, SENIOR COUNSEL
FOR MR.P.GIRIDHARAN AND
MR.H.SIDDARTH FOR R5
MR.S.SHYAM KUMAR FOR R8
M/S.R.RACHANA FOR R9
OSA.NO.140 OF 2024
FOR APPELLANT : MR.VIJAY NARAYAN, SENIOR COUNSEL
FOR MR.PRASAD VIJAYA KUMAR
FOR RESPONDENTS : MR.AUDUL SALEEM, SENIOR COUNSEL
FOR MR.M.VIJAYA MEHANATH FOR R1
MRS.CHITRA SAMPATH, SENIOR COUNSEL
FOR MR.T.S.BASKARAN FOR R3 AND R4.
MR.A.L.SOMAYAJI, SENIOR COUNSEL
FOR MR.S.ELAM BHARATHI
FOR R5, R6, AND R9
MR.P.S.RAMAN, SENIOR COUNSEL
Page No41/.131
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 04:40:03 pm )

O.S.A.No.108 of 2024 and connected appeals
FOR MR.P.GIRIDHARAN AND
MR.H.SIDDARTH FOR R2
R7 AND R8-NO APPEARANCE
MR.S.SHYAM KUMAR FOR R10
M/S.R.RACHANA FOR R11

OSA.NO.142 OF 2024
FOR APPELLANT : MR.VIJAY NARAYAN, SENIOR COUNSEL
FOR MR. PRASAD VIJAYA KUMAR
FOR RESPONDENTS : MRS.CHITRA SAMPATH, SENIOR COUNSEL
FOR MR.T.S.BASKARAN FOR R1 AND R2.
MR.ABDUL SALEEM, SENIOR COUNSEL
FOR Mr.M.VIJAYA MEHANATH FOR R3
MR.A.L.SOMAYAJI, SENIOR COUNSEL
FOR MR.S.ELAM BHARATHI
FOR R5, R6, AND R9
MR.P.S.RAMAN, SENIOR COUNSEL
FOR MR.P.GIRIDHARAN AND
MR.H.SIDDARTH FOR R4
R7 AND R8-NO APPEARANCE
MR.S.SHYAM KUMAR FOR R10
M/S.R.RACHANA FOR R11
OSA.NO.144 OF 2024
FOR APPELLANT : MR.P.S.RAMAN, SENIOR COUNSEL
FOR MR.P.GIRIDHARAN AND
MR.H.SIDDARTH
FOR RESPONDENTS : MRS.CHITRA SAMPATH, SENIOR COUNSEL
FOR MR.T.S. BASKARAN FOR R1 AND R2.
Page No42/.131
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 04:40:03 pm )

O.S.A.No.108 of 2024 and connected appeals
MR.ABDUL SALEEM, SENIOR COUNSEL
FOR MR.M.VIJAYA MEHANATH FOR R3
MR.A.L.SOMAYAJI, SENIOR COUNSEL
FOR MR.S.ELAM BHARATHI
FOR R4, R5, AND R8
MR. VIJAY NARAYAN, SENIOR COUNSEL
FOR MR.PRASAD VIJAYA KUMAR FOR R9
R6 AND R7-NO APPEARANCE
MR.S.SHYAM KUMAR FOR R10
M/S.R.RACHANA FOR R11
OSA.NO.154 OF 2025
FOR APPELLANT : MRS.CHITRA SAMPATH, SENIOR COUNSEL
FOR MR.T.S.BASKARAN
FOR RESPONDENTS : MR.ABDUL SALEEM, SENIOR COUNSEL
FOR MR.M.VIJAYA MEHANATH FOR R1
MR.A.L.SOMAYAJI, SENIOR COUNSEL
FOR MR.S.ELAM BHARATHI FOR R2 TO R4
MR.S.SHYAM KUMAR FOR R6
MR.P.S.RAMAN, SENIOR COUNSEL
FOR MR.P. GIRIDHARAN AND
MR.H.SIDDARTH FOR R5
M/S.R.RACHANA FOR R8
MR.VIJAY NARAYAN, SENIOR COUNSEL
FOR MR.PRASAD VIJAYA KUMAR FOR R7
Page No43/.131
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 04:40:03 pm )

O.S.A.No.108 of 2024 and connected appeals

OSA.NO.155 OF 2025
FOR APPELLANT : MRS.CHITRA SAMPATH, SENIOR COUNSEL
FOR MR.T.S. BASKARAN

FOR RESPONDENTS : MR.ABDUL SALEEM, SENIOR COUNSEL
FOR MR.M.VIJAYA MEHANATH FOR R1
MR.A.L.SOMAYAJI, SENIOR COUNSEL
FOR MR.S.ELAM BHARATHI FOR R2 TO R4
MR.P.S.RAMAN, SENIOR COUNSEL
FOR MR.P.GIRIDHARAN AND
MR.H.SIDDARTH FOR R5
MR.S.SHYAM KUMAR FOR R6
MR. VIJAY NARAYAN, SENIOR COUNSEL
FOR MR.PRASAD VIJAYA KUMAR FOR R7
M/S.R.RACHANA FOR R8

OSA.NO.156 OF 2025
FOR APPELLANT : MRS.CHITRA SAMPATH, SENIOR COUNSEL
FOR MR.T.S.BASKARAN
FOR RESPONDENTS : MR.ABDUL SALEEM, SENIOR COUNSEL
FOR MR.M.VIJAYA MEHANATH FOR R1
MR.A.L.SOMAYAJI, SENIOR COUNSEL
FOR MR.S.ELAM BHARATHI
FOR R3, R4 AND R7
MR.P.S.RAMAN, SENIOR COUNSEL
FOR MR.P.GIRIDHARAN AND
Page No44/.131
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 04:40:03 pm )

O.S.A.No.108 of 2024 and connected appeals
R.H.SIDDARTH FOR R2
R5 AND R6 –NO APPEARANCE
MR.S.SHYAM KUMAR FOR R8
MR. VIJAY NARAYAN, SENIOR COUNSEL
FOR MR. PRASAD VIJAYA KUMAR FOR R9
M/S.R.RACHANA FOR R10
OSA.NO.157 OF 2025
FOR APPELLANT : MRS.CHITRA SAMPATH, SENIOR COUNSEL
FOR MR.T.S. BASKARAN
FOR RESPONDENTS : MR.A.L.SOMAYAJI, SENIOR COUNSEL
FOR MR.S.ELAM BHARATHI FOR R1 TO R3
MR.ABDUL SALEEM, SENIOR COUNSEL
FOR MR.M.VIJAYA MEHANATH FOR R4
MR.P.S.RAMAN, SENIOR COUNSEL
FOR MR.P.GIRIDHARAN AND
MR.H.SIDDARTH FOR R5
MR.VIJAY NARAYAN, SENIOR COUNSEL
FOR MR.PRASAD VIJAYA KUMAR FOR R6
MR.S.SHYAM KUMAR FOR R7
M/S.R.RACHANA FOR R8
Page No45/.131
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 04:40:03 pm )

O.S.A.No.108 of 2024 and connected appeals
OSA.NO.158 OF 2025
FOR APPELLANT : MRS.CHITRA SAMPATH, SENIOR COUNSEL
FOR MR.T.S. BASKARAN
FOR RESPONDENTS : MR.ABDUL SALEEM, SENIOR COUNSEL
FOR MR.M.VIJAYA MEHANATH FOR R1
MR.A.L.SOMAYAJI, SENIOR COUNSEL
FOR MR.S.ELAM BHARATHI
FOR R3, R4 AND R5
MR.P.S.RAMAN, SENIOR COUNSEL
FOR MR.P. GIRIDHARAN AND
MR H. SIDDARTH FOR R2
MR. VIJAY NARAYAN, SENIOR COUNSEL
FOR MR.PRASAD VIJAYA KUMAR FOR R6
MR.S.SHYAM KUMAR FOR R7
M/S.R.RACHANA FOR R8
OSA.NO.159 OF 2025
FOR APPELLANT : MRS.CHITRA SAMPATH, SENIOR COUNSEL
FOR MR.T.S. BASKARAN
FOR RESPONDENTS : MR.ABDUL SALEEM, SENIOR COUNSEL
FOR MR.M.VIJAYA MEHANATH FOR R1
MR.P.S.RAMAN, SENIOR COUNSEL
FOR MR.P.GIRIDHARAN AND
MR.H. SIDDARTH FOR R2
MR.A.L.SOMAYAJI, SENIOR COUNSEL
FOR MR.S.ELAM BHARATHI
FOR R6, R7 AND R8
Page No46/.131
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 04:40:03 pm )

O.S.A.No.108 of 2024 and connected appeals
MR.VIJAY NARAYAN, SENIOR COUNSEL
FOR MR.PRASAD VIJAYA KUMAR FOR R9
MR.S.SHYAM KUMAR FOR R10
M/S.R.RACHANA FOR R11
OSA.NO.160 OF 2025
FOR APPELLANT : MRS.CHITRA SAMPATH, SENIOR COUNSEL
FOR MR.T.S. BASKARAN
FOR RESPONDENTS : MR.ABDUL SALEEM, SENIOR COUNSEL
FOR MR.M.VIJAYA MEHANATH FOR R1
MR.A.L.SOMAYAJI, SENIOR COUNSEL
FOR MR.S.ELAM BHARATHI
FOR R6, R7 AND R8
MR.P.S.RAMAN, SENIOR COUNSEL
FOR MR.P.GIRIDHARAN AND
MR.H.SIDDARTH FOR R2
MR.VIJAY NARAYAN, SENIOR COUNSEL
FOR MR.PRASAD VIJAYA KUMAR FOR R9
MR.S.SHYAM KUMAR FOR R10
M/S.R.RACHANA FOR R11
Page No47/.131
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 04:40:03 pm )

O.S.A.No.108 of 2024 and connected appeals
C O M M O N J U D G M E N T
P.VELMURUGAN, J.

These seventeen Original Side Appeals have been filed against the
common order dated 10.08.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in
O.P.Nos.122 of 2014, 269 of 2014, 350 of 2017, 391 of 2017, 863 of 2018, 864
of 2018 and 40 of 2019. By the said common order, the learned Single Judge
considered the challenges to three Interim Awards dated 28.11.2013, 15.03.2014
and 29.09.2018 passed by the Arbitral Tribunal.
2. Since all the appeals arise out of the same partnership dispute, involve
the same parties and arise from the same arbitral proceedings, they are heard
together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
3. Before considering the respective appeals, it would be appropriate to
set out, in brief, the background of the dispute, the constitution of the Arbitral
Tribunal, the proceedings before the Tribunal and the proceedings before the
learned Single Judge:-
3.1. The dispute relates to the partnership firm, M/s.Dinamalar, which is
engaged in the publication of the Tamil daily newspaper "Dinamalar". The
newspaper was started in the year 1951 by late T.V. Ramasubbiyer. He had five
Page No48/.131
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 04:40:03 pm )

O.S.A.No.108 of 2024 and connected appeals
sons, namely, R.Venkitapathy, R.Krishnamoorthy, R.Lakshmipathy, R.Raghavan
and R.Sathyamurthy, who were the five claimants before the Arbitral Tribunal.
They were inducted as partners in the business in the year 1960. The firm was
subsequently reconstituted on several occasions and, under the partnership deed
dated 23.03.1997, each of the five partners was entitled to 20% share in the
profits and losses of the firm.
3.2. The business of Dinamalar expanded over the years and ten editions
came to be established at different places, namely, Tirunelveli, Tiruchirappalli,
Chennai, Madurai, Erode, Pondicherry, Coimbatore, Vellore, Nagercoil and
Salem. The editions were managed by different partners. The above editions
were being managed broadly as follows:
The first claimant, R.Venkitapathy, was associated with Tirunelveli and
Nagercoil; the second claimant, R.Krishnamoorthy, with Chennai and
Pondicherry; the third claimant, R.Lakshmipathy, with Madurai and
Coimbatore; the fourth claimant, R. Raghavan, with Tiruchirappalli and Vellore;
and the fifth claimant, R.Sathyamurthy, with Salem and Erode.
3.3. Differences arose between the partners in relation to the management
of the various editions, accounts, assets, circulation, advertisement revenue and
other matters concerning the partnership business, including the name and
trademark "Dinamalar". The disputes resulted in several civil suits before this
Page No49/.131
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 04:40:03 pm )

O.S.A.No.108 of 2024 and connected appeals
Court from the year 2001 onwards, including C.S.Nos.689 of 2001, 711 of
2002, 737 of 2004, 22 of 2005 and 119 of 2006.
3.4. In the year 2006, the fifth claimant, R.Sathyamurthy, filed
C.S.No.640 of 2006 seeking, among other reliefs, rendition of accounts in
respect of the Chennai, Madurai, Pondicherry and Coimbatore editions from the
year 2002-2003 and details of the advertisement revenue of the newspaper. He
also filed O.A.No.721 of 2006 seeking appointment of a Receiver to manage
those editions. By order dated 18.09.2006, a Receiver was appointed.
3.5. Aggrieved by the order appointing the Receiver, appeals in
O.S.A.Nos.282 and 285 of 2006 were filed before this Court. While those
appeals were pending, the parties arrived at an understanding to refer their
disputes to arbitration. Accordingly, a Memo dated 18.01.2007 was filed by the
parties agreeing to refer the disputes arising out of the partnership business and
the pending suits to arbitration. Pursuant to the said Memo, this Court, by order
dated 23.01.2007, referred the disputes between the parties to an Arbitral
Tribunal.
3.6. The Arbitral Tribunal was initially constituted with Hon'ble
Mr.Justice K.Venkataswamy (Retd.) as the Presiding Arbitrator, along with
Hon'ble Mr.Justice R.Jayashima Babu (Retd.) and Hon'ble Mr.Justice
S.S.Subramani (Retd.) as the other Arbitrators. All the five claimants filed their
Page No50/.131
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 04:40:03 pm )

O.S.A.No.108 of 2024 and connected appeals
respective claims and counterclaims. On the basis of the pleadings, the Tribunal
framed 45 issues on 18.07.2007. Thereafter, the parties let in oral and
documentary evidence.
3.7. During the pendency of the arbitral proceedings, Justice
K.Venkataswamy (Retd.) passed away. Thereafter, Hon'ble Mr.Justice
T.Somasundaram (Retd.) was appointed as the Presiding Arbitrator and the
Tribunal was reconstituted with Justice T.Somasundaram as the Presiding
Arbitrator and Justices R.Jayashima Babu and S.S.Subramani as the other
members.
3.8. During the pendency of the arbitral proceedings, the fifth claimant,
R.Sathyamurthy, issued a notice dated 27.02.2012 seeking dissolution of the
partnership firm with effect from the same date. The notice was issued by
invoking Clause 4 of the partnership deed and Section 43 of the Indian
Partnership Act, 1932. The fourth claimant, late R.Raghavan, objected to the
Tribunal considering the question of dissolution.
3.9. By common order dated 23.07.2012, the Tribunal held that it had
jurisdiction to consider the question of dissolution. The Tribunal held that the
notice of dissolution was within the scope of the disputes referred to arbitration.
Thereafter, claimants 1, 2, 3 and 5 filed additional pleadings in relation to
dissolution and the Tribunal framed eight additional issues on 09.10.2012.
Page No51/.131
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 04:40:03 pm )

O.S.A.No.108 of 2024 and connected appeals
3.10. The first and second claimants also filed O.A.No.132 of 2012 before
this Court challenging the notice of dissolution. By order dated 30.10.2012, this
Court restrained the fifth claimant from interfering with the management of the
business, including circulation and banking operations, in respect of the
Chennai, Pondicherry, Madurai and Coimbatore editions.
3.11. The fourth claimant, late R.Raghavan, challenged the order dated
23.07.2012 by filing C.S.No.748 of 2012 before this Court. The said challenge
was rejected. O.S.A.No.103 of 2012 filed against the said order was also
dismissed on 27.02.2013. Thereafter, the fourth claimant approached the
Hon'ble Supreme Court by filing S.L.P.No.14417 of 2013.
3.12. On 12.09.2013, the Hon'ble Supreme Court recorded the settlement
between the parties and directed the Tribunal to first decide the original 45
issues and thereafter consider the question of dissolution.
3.13. Pursuant to the said direction, the Tribunal considered the original
45 issues and passed the First Interim Award dated 28.11.2013. By the said
Award, the Tribunal rejected the claims, except Issue No.15, and held, among
other things, that each of the five claimants was entitled to a one-fifth share in
the assets of the partnership firm. The existing arrangement regarding the
management of the respective editions was also directed to continue until the
final Award.
Page No52/.131
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 04:40:03 pm )

O.S.A.No.108 of 2024 and connected appeals
3.14. The First Interim Award was challenged before this Court. The
second and third claimants filed O.P.No.350 of 2017 and the fourth claimant,
late R.Raghavan, filed O.P.No.122 of 2014, seeking to set aside the said Award.
3.15. Thereafter, the Tribunal proceeded to consider the question of
dissolution and passed the Second Interim Award dated 15.03.2014. The
Tribunal held that the partnership firm "Dinamalar" was a partnership at will
and stood dissolved with effect from 27.02.2012, i.e., the date on which the fifth
claimant, R.Sathyamurthy, issued the notice of dissolution. The Tribunal also
held that until the final order of settlement of accounts and distribution of assets
of the dissolved Firm are passed the Firm shall continue to carry on business
and the claimants shall preserve and protect all of the assets of the dissolved
Firm in their custody, possession or control and account for the same. The
Tribunal further held specifically that none of the parties shall alienate any of
the assets of the Firm except for those expenses which are necessary in the day
to day running of their respective editions in the normal course of business.
3.16. The Second Interim Award was challenged by the fourth claimant in
O.P.No.269 of 2014 and by the second and third claimants in O.P.No.391 of
2017. The challenges related, among other matters, to the dissolution, the
jurisdiction of the Tribunal and the consequential directions issued by the
Tribunal.
Page No53/.131
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 04:40:03 pm )

O.S.A.No.108 of 2024 and connected appeals
3.17. Thereafter, during the further course of the arbitral proceedings,
Justice R.Jayasimha Babu (Retd.) passed away and Justice S.S.Subramani
(Retd.) was unable to continue as an Arbitrator. Consequently, the Arbitral
Tribunal was again reconstituted. Hon'ble Mrs.Justice Chitra Venkataraman
(Retd.) and Hon'ble Mr.Justice R.V.Easwar (Retd.) were appointed as the other
members of the Tribunal, with Hon'ble Mr.Justice T.Somasundaram (Retd.)
continuing as the Presiding Arbitrator.
3.18. The Tribunal thereafter proceeded with the matters arising after
dissolution and passed the Third Interim Award dated 29.09.2018. The said
Award dealt with the winding up of the partnership firm, distribution of its ten
editions, the trademark and goodwill, the lands at Tirunelveli and Medavakkam
and the consequential arrangements between the parties. It also contained
directions regarding the manner in which the respective parties were to carry on
business after dissolution.
3.19. Under the Third Interim Award, the editions were distributed among
the parties. The first claimant was allotted the Tirunelveli, Nagercoil, Erode and
Salem editions; the second and third claimants were allotted the Madurai,
Chennai and Vellore editions jointly; the legal representatives of the deceased
fourth claimant were allotted the Tiruchirappalli and Pondicherry editions; and
the fifth claimant was allotted the Coimbatore edition. The Tribunal also issued
Page No54/.131
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 04:40:03 pm )

O.S.A.No.108 of 2024 and connected appeals
directions concerning the use and registration of the "Dinamalar" trademark in
the respective areas.
3.20. The Third Interim Award further contained directions relating to the
trademark, the conduct of the respective editions, closure of the existing website
and creation of separate domain names, transfer and mutation of properties,
handing over of editions and assets and non-interference with the business of
the other parties. The Tribunal also issued directions restraining the parties from
competing in the respective areas allotted to the other parties.
3.21. The Third Interim Award was challenged by the second claimant in
O.P.No.863 of 2018, by the third claimant in O.P.No.864 of 2018, and by the
fourth claimant in O.P.No.40 of 2019.
3.22. Thus, three Interim Awards were passed at three different stages of
the arbitral proceedings. The First Interim Award dated 28.11.2013 dealt mainly
with the claims of the partners and their one-fifth interest in the assets of the
firm. The Second Interim Award dated 15.03.2014 dealt with dissolution of the
partnership with effect from 27.02.2012 and the consequential directions. The
Third Interim Award dated 29.09.2018 dealt with the subsequent winding up,
valuation and distribution of the editions and other assets of the firm.
Page No55/.131
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 04:40:03 pm )

O.S.A.No.108 of 2024 and connected appeals
3.23. The aforesaid seven Original Petitions filed under Section 34 of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, namely, O.P.Nos.122 of 2014, 269 of
2014, 350 of 2017, 391 of 2017, 863 of 2018, 864 of 2018 and 40 of 2019, were
heard together by the learned Single Judge along with the connected civil suits
and applications.
3.24. The learned Single Judge framed eleven issues and, after
considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence and the submissions
of the parties, held that the partnership was a partnership at will and that the
dissolution notice dated 27.02.2012 issued by the fifth claimant,
R.Sathyamurthy, was valid. It was also held that the Tribunal had jurisdiction to
decide the question of dissolution.
3.25. However, insofar as the subsequent winding-up process was
concerned, the learned Single Judge held that the Tribunal had exceeded its
jurisdiction by undertaking matters which could affect third parties. The learned
Single Judge also found shortcomings in the valuation of the goodwill and
trademark.
Page No56/.131
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 04:40:03 pm )

O.S.A.No.108 of 2024 and connected appeals
3.26. In the result, the learned Single Judge substantially upheld the First
Interim Award dated 28.11.2013. The Second Interim Award dated 15.03.2014
was upheld insofar as it declared dissolution of the partnership, but the
consequential directions were set aside. The Third Interim Award dated
29.09.2018 was set aside in its entirety. Consequently, O.P.Nos.122 of 2014 and
350 of 2017 were dismissed; O.P.Nos.269 of 2014 and 391 of 2017 were partly
allowed; and O.P.Nos.863 of 2018, 864 of 2018 and 40 of 2019 were allowed.
3.27. Aggrieved by the aforesaid common order, the present seventeen
Original Side Appeals have been filed by claimants 1, 4 and 5 / legal
representatives. The appeals are against the common order dated 10.08.2023
passed by the learned Single Judge in the respective Section 34 proceedings,
insofar as the findings therein relate to the three Interim Awards.
3.28. O.S.A.Nos.154 and 159 of 2025 arise out of O.P.Nos.350 of 2017
and 122 of 2014 respectively and relate to the First Interim Award dated
28.11.2013.
3.29. O.S.A.Nos.108, 135 of 2024 and 160 of 2025 arise out of
O.P.No.269 of 2014, while O.S.A.Nos.113, 114 of 2024 and 155 of 2025 arise
out of O.P.No.391 of 2017. These appeals relate to the Second Interim Award
dated 15.03.2014, particularly the findings concerning dissolution and the
consequential directions.
Page No57/.131
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 04:40:03 pm )

O.S.A.No.108 of 2024 and connected appeals
3.30. O.S.A.Nos.109, 138 of 2024 and 157 of 2025 arise out of
O.P.No.863 of 2018; O.S.A.Nos.121 of 2024, 140 of 2024 and 156 of 2025 arise
out of O.P.No.864 of 2018; and O.S.A.Nos.142, 144 of 2024 and 158 of 2025
arise out of O.P.No.40 of 2019. These appeals relate to the Third Interim Award
dated 29.09.2018 and the order of the learned Single Judge setting aside the said
Award.
3.31. The learned Single Judge substantially upheld the First Interim
Award, partly interfered with the Second Interim Award and set aside the Third
Interim Award in its entirety. The correctness of those findings is now before us
in the present batch of appeals.
4. Several appeals have been filed by the legal heirs of Claimant No.1
(Dr.R.Venkitapathy), the legal heirs of Claimant No.4 (R.Raghavan) and
Claimant No.5 (R.Sathyamurthy). Claimant No.2 (Dr.R.Krishnamoorthy),
represented by his legal heirs, and Claimant No.3 (Dr.R.Lakshmipathy) are the
respondents. In order to avoid repetition of the submissions, the arguments
advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties are set out
below, claimant-wise:-
5.1. Mr. Vijay Narayan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the legal
heirs of the first claimant/Dr.R.Venkitapathy, would submit that the learned
Single Judge failed to appreciate the limited scope of interference available to a
Page No58/.131
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 04:40:03 pm )

O.S.A.No.108 of 2024 and connected appeals
Court exercising jurisdiction under Section 34 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996. According to him, the Court exercising jurisdiction
under Section 34 cannot sit in appeal over the findings of the Arbitral Tribunal
or re-appreciate the evidence on record and interfere with the award merely on
the ground of reasonableness of the reasons assigned by the Tribunal, an alleged
mistake of fact or a different appreciation of the material available before it. He
would submit that the Arbitrators are the sole judges of the quality and quantity
of evidence and that an award cannot be interfered with merely because the
evidence may be considered to be insufficient or of an inferior quality. He
would further submit that, while applying the test of public policy, the Court
does not exercise appellate jurisdiction over the arbitral award and an error of
fact cannot be corrected unless the approach of the Arbitrators is found to be
arbitrary or capricious.
5.2. The learned Senior Counsel would further submit that the learned
Single Judge erred in partly upholding and partly setting aside the arbitral
awards. According to him, the jurisdiction under Section 34 does not empower
the Court to modify, revise or vary an arbitral award and, therefore, the learned
Single Judge ought not to have modified the awards dated 15.03.2014 and
29.09.2018 by directing the parties to approach the Civil Court for winding up
of the partnership firm and by restoring the earlier position of the respective
Page No59/.131
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 04:40:03 pm )

O.S.A.No.108 of 2024 and connected appeals
editions until such winding up was completed. In this regard, he would place
reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National
Highways Authority of India v. M. Hakeem, [(2021) 9 SCC 1] , and submit that
the power to modify an arbitral award is not available to a Court exercising
jurisdiction under Section 34 of the Act. He would also rely upon the judgment
in Larsen Air Conditioning v. Union of India, [Civil Appeal No.3798 of 2023] ,
in support of the submission that such power of modification has been expressly
excluded under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
5.3. The learned Senior Counsel would then submit that the finding of the
learned Single Judge that the Arbitral Tribunal had assumed the role of a
liquidator and had acted beyond the authority conferred upon it was erroneous.
He would submit that the parties had arrived at a settlement before the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in S.L.P.No.14417 of 2013, pursuant to which the parties
expressly agreed that, after passing of the earlier award, the same Arbitral
Tribunal would take up the issue of dissolution of the firm and decide the same
in accordance with the procedure evolved by it. According to him, the said
consent before the Hon'ble Supreme Court constituted a clear agreement
between the parties conferring authority upon the Tribunal to deal with the
dissolution of the firm. He would further submit that, even during the
proceedings leading to the subsequent award, the parties had placed before the
Page No60/.131
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 04:40:03 pm )

O.S.A.No.108 of 2024 and connected appeals
Tribunal different proposals concerning the manner in which the assets and
editions of the firm were to be distributed or liquidated. While Claimants 1 and
5 sought redistribution of the editions corresponding to their 20% share,
Claimant Nos.2 and 3 proposed an auction amongst the partners and Claimant
No.5 proposed an auction of the entire firm to third parties. According to him,
this clearly demonstrated that there was no dispute as to the authority of the
Tribunal to deal with the distribution or liquidation of the assets and that the
dispute was only regarding the mode by which such distribution was to be
effected.
5.4. The learned Senior Counsel would submit that the learned Single
Judge further erred in holding that the winding up of a partnership firm is
distinct from its dissolution and that the consequential winding up could be
undertaken only by a Civil Court. According to him, under the scheme of the
Indian Partnership Act, dissolution and the consequential winding up of the
affairs of the firm are interconnected and the winding up of the partnership is a
part and parcel of the dissolution of the partnership. In support of the said
submission, he would rely upon the judgment of the Division Bench of the
Bombay High Court in Santdas Moolchand Jhangiani v. Sheodayal
Gurudasmal Massand , [(1970) SCC OnLine Bom 79] , wherein it was held that
the matters relating to the fact of dissolution, the date of dissolution, winding up
Page No61/.131
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 04:40:03 pm )

O.S.A.No.108 of 2024 and connected appeals
of the partnership, settlement of accounts and taking over of the goodwill and
assets are all dealt with under the subject of dissolution of a firm and that
winding up is dependent upon the preceding fact of dissolution.
5.5. The learned Senior Counsel would further submit that the learned
Single Judge failed to appreciate that Section 48 of the Partnership Act itself
begins with the expression “subject to agreement by the parties”. According to
learned Senior Counsel, the statutory mode prescribed under Section 48 for
settlement of accounts is therefore subject to an agreement between the partners.
He would place reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Asandas Mitharam Narsinghani v. Tekchand Mitharam Sevakramani [(1993)
3 SCC 110] , wherein it was held that the mode prescribed under Section 48 is
subject to an agreement between the parties and that the partners may agree that
the statutory mode need not be followed for settlement of accounts. He would
submit that, in the present case, the parties had expressly agreed before the
Hon'ble Supreme Court that the issue of dissolution and the consequential
process would be dealt with by the Arbitral Tribunal and, therefore, the learned
Single Judge erred in proceeding on the basis that Section 48, by itself,
prevented the Tribunal from undertaking the consequential process.
Page No62/.131
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 04:40:03 pm )

O.S.A.No.108 of 2024 and connected appeals
5.6. The learned Senior Counsel would further submit that the learned
Single Judge was also not correct in holding that the Arbitral Tribunal had failed
to comply with the requirements relating to third-party liabilities under Section
48 of the Partnership Act. He would submit that the Tribunal, by its proceedings
dated 19.05.2014, had appointed auditors to conduct an in-depth audit of all the
editions of Dinamalar, including the income, expenditure, assets and liabilities,
physical verification of stocks and assets and obtaining confirmations from third
parties. According to him, the auditors were required to obtain third-party
confirmations in respect of each edition and thereafter submit consolidated
accounts and an audit report. He would therefore submit that the necessary
exercise relating to the ascertainment of third-party liabilities had in fact been
undertaken before the valuation report was submitted to the Tribunal. He would
further submit that the learned Single Judge erred in proceeding on the basis
that the auditors had merely relied upon the balance sheets and the amounts
reflected therein for determining the debts and liabilities of the firm. According
to learned Senior Counsel, the auditors had undertaken an in-depth exercise by
examining the books of accounts of all the ten editions, deputing their staff to
visit the respective editions, physically examining the relevant material,
obtaining information through questionnaires from the management personnel
and thereafter determining the debts and liabilities both edition-wise and on a
consolidated basis. He would therefore submit that the finding of the learned
Page No63/.131
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 04:40:03 pm )

O.S.A.No.108 of 2024 and connected appeals
Single Judge that the auditors had undertaken only a limited exercise was not
borne out by the material on record.
5.7. The learned Senior Counsel would also submit that the finding of the
learned Single Judge that the auditors had obtained confirmation of balances
only from a few creditors and that several creditors had not furnished
confirmation was not supported either by the pleadings or by the evidence. He
would submit that a finding unsupported by evidence or one which ignores vital
evidence would amount to patent illegality. In support of the said submission, he
would rely upon PSA Sical Terminals Ltd. v. Board of Trustees of V.O.
Chidambaranar Port Trust, Tuticorin [2021 SCC OnLine SC 508] , wherein
the Hon'ble Supreme Court dealt with a finding based on no evidence or an
award which ignores vital evidence as constituting a ground of patent illegality
appearing on the face of the award.
5.8. The learned Senior Counsel would further submit that the learned
Single Judge proceeded on an erroneous assumption that the Arbitral Tribunal
had actually wound up the firm and that such winding up constituted an action
in rem beyond the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. According to him, the Tribunal
had not wound up the firm in a manner affecting the rights of third parties, but
had only valued and redistributed the editions and assets of Dinamalar so that
each of the five partners would receive their respective 20% share in the
Page No64/.131
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 04:40:03 pm )

O.S.A.No.108 of 2024 and connected appeals
enterprise value of the firm. He would therefore submit that the finding that the
Tribunal had undertaken an action in rem was erroneous.
5.9. The learned Senior Counsel would further submit that the learned
Single Judge erred in treating the winding up of a partnership firm as involving
a right in rem and, consequently, as a non-arbitrable dispute. According to him,
the dispute in the present case was essentially between the partners concerning
their respective rights and obligations arising out of the partnership and was
therefore in the nature of a right in personam. He would submit that, after
publication of the notice of dissolution in the Official Gazette on 21.03.2012
and in Dinamani newspaper on 13.03.2012, no third party had come forward
claiming any interest in the property of the firm. He would therefore contend
that the learned Single Judge was not justified in setting aside the awards on the
ground that third-party rights were involved.
5.10. The learned Senior Counsel would further submit that the objection
regarding the jurisdiction of the Arbitral Tribunal to deal with the dissolution
and winding up of the firm was raised by Claimants 2 and 3 only at the very last
stage of the arbitral proceedings, after the conclusion of oral arguments and at
the stage of filing written submissions. According to him, the said objection was
therefore belated and ought not to have been entertained. He would submit that
the parties had already consented before the Hon'ble Supreme Court to the
Page No65/.131
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 04:40:03 pm )

O.S.A.No.108 of 2024 and connected appeals
Tribunal taking up the issue of dissolution and, having participated in the
proceedings, the concerned claimants could not subsequently raise a
jurisdictional objection at the fag end of the proceedings.
5.11. The learned Senior Counsel would further submit that the said
objection was also contrary to the principle of kompetenz-kompetenz [also
referred to as “competence-competence”] embodied in Section 16 of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. According to learned Senior Counsel, a
party questioning the jurisdiction of the Arbitral Tribunal is required to raise
such objection before the Tribunal at the appropriate stage and, particularly,
when the objection relates to the alleged excess of jurisdiction, it ought to be
raised as a preliminary issue. He would rely upon the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Uttarakhand Purv Sainik Kalyan Nigam Ltd. v. Northern
Coal Field Ltd. , [(2020) 2 SCC 455] , in support of the principle that the
doctrine of kompetenz-kompetenz is intended to minimise judicial intervention
so that the arbitral process is not thwarted at the threshold.
5.12. The learned Senior Counsel would also place reliance upon the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in McDermott International Inc. v.
Burn Standard Co. Ltd. , [(2006) 11 SCC 181], and submit that a party
questioning the jurisdiction of the Arbitrator is required to raise such objection
before the Arbitrator during the arbitral proceedings or at the earliest
Page No66/.131
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 04:40:03 pm )

O.S.A.No.108 of 2024 and connected appeals
appropriate stage. According to him, the jurisdictional objection in the present
case was not raised when the issue of dissolution arose, but was raised only
after the oral arguments had concluded. He would therefore submit that the
learned Single Judge ought not to have given credence to such a belated
objection while examining the arbitral awards under Section 34.
5.13. The learned Senior Counsel would further submit that the learned
Single Judge also erred in holding that the publication of a public notice of
dissolution did not amount to a proper calling for claims from third parties. He
would reiterate that the proceedings of the Arbitral Tribunal dated 19.05.2014
specifically required the auditors to undertake an in-depth audit and obtain
third-party confirmations in respect of each edition of Dinamalar. According to
him, the auditors, in the course of their assignment, obtained the requisite third-
party confirmations and therefore the finding that the Tribunal had failed to
undertake the exercise contemplated under Section 48 of the Partnership Act
was erroneous.
5.14. The learned Senior Counsel would further submit that the learned
Single Judge erred in holding that there was no express consent under Section
28(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, permitting the Tribunal to
decide the disputes on the basis of equity. He would draw attention to the
compromise entered into between the parties, pursuant to which this Court, by
Page No67/.131
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 04:40:03 pm )

O.S.A.No.108 of 2024 and connected appeals
order dated 23.01.2007 in O.S.A.No.282 of 2006, referred the pending disputes
to arbitration. According to him, the settlement expressly provided that all
differences and disputes arising out of or in relation to the business covered by
the Partnership Deed dated 23.03.1997 would be adjudicated and decided by the
Arbitral Tribunal. He would further submit that, subsequently, before the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.L.P.No.14417 of 2013, the parties again agreed that
the Arbitral Tribunal would take up the issue of dissolution and decide the same
in accordance with the procedure evolved by it. He would therefore submit that
the finding that there was no express consent by the parties was contrary to the
terms of the consent orders and settlement.
5.15. The learned Senior Counsel would further submit that the learned
Single Judge erred in treating the issue relating to the trademark “Dinamalar” as
involving a right in rem. According to him, the Arbitral Tribunal had not
adjudicated upon any question concerning infringement, passing off or the
validity of the trademark as against third parties. It had merely dealt with the
trademark as an asset of the partnership firm and determined the manner in
which such asset was to be dealt with upon dissolution. He would submit that
the determination made by the Tribunal was therefore only a determination of
the rights of the partners inter se and did not affect any right in rem. He would
also point out that Claimants 2 and 3 themselves had raised the issue concerning
Page No68/.131
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 04:40:03 pm )

O.S.A.No.108 of 2024 and connected appeals
the trademark in paragraph No.47 of their claim statement dated 14.04.2007 and
had sought relief in respect thereof, and therefore, according to him, they could
not subsequently contend that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate
upon the same.
5.16. Finally, learned Senior Counsel would submit that the Arbitral
Tribunal had acted within the four corners of the Partnership Deed and the
authority conferred upon it by the parties and had not exercised any power
beyond the scope of the reference. He would submit that the question of
valuation of the goodwill and reputation attached to the trademark would arise
only if one or more of the partners had waived or surrendered their right to use
the trademark after dissolution. According to him, since all the partners had
been granted liberty to use the trademark with an appropriate prefix or suffix,
there was no occasion for separately valuing the goodwill or reputation of the
trademark. He would therefore submit that the learned Single Judge was not
justified in interfering with the arbitral awards on the grounds set out in the
impugned judgment and would pray that the common judgment dated
10.08.2023, insofar as it set aside the arbitral awards dated 15.03.2014 and
29.09.2018, be set aside and the arbitral awards be restored.
6.1. Mrs.Chitra Sampath, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the legal
heirs of the deceased fourth claimant/R.Raghavan, would submit that the
Page No69/.131
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 04:40:03 pm )

O.S.A.No.108 of 2024 and connected appeals
learned Judge erred in confirming the finding of the Arbitral Tribunal that the
accounts of the Firm had been settled up to the year 2010-2011. According to
her, the partners had never accepted the correctness of the figures reflected in
the balance sheets submitted to the Income Tax Department. The accounts
relating to the editions which were under the control of claimants 2 and 3 had
not been made available to the other partners. Only a CD prepared by their own
internal auditor had been furnished to the common auditor, Mr.Marimuthu, who
had thereafter consolidated the accounts. Therefore, the mere fact that accounts
had been prepared and Income Tax returns had been filed could not be treated as
an acceptance of the correctness of those accounts.
6.2. The learned Senior Counsel would further submit that the evidence of
claimants 2 and 3 in cross-examination had not been properly considered. Their
answers to the various questions put to them clearly related to the correctness
and availability of the accounts. In spite of the same, the Arbitral Tribunal
proceeded on the basis that the completion of the 44AB audit and the credit of
profits to the current accounts of the partners showed that the accounts had been
accepted. According to the learned Senior Counsel, such a conclusion was not
supported by the evidence on record.
6.3. The learned Senior Counsel would submit that claimants 2 and 3
themselves had stated that there was no fusion of the funds of all the editions
Page No70/.131
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 04:40:03 pm )

O.S.A.No.108 of 2024 and connected appeals
and that they had retained the income generated from the editions under their
respective control. Though book entries were made by distributing the total
profit equally among the partners, a mere entry in the books could not amount
to an acceptance by the other partners of the profits declared by claimants 2 and
3. She would therefore submit that the other partners could not be deprived of
their right to look into the accounts of all the editions. She would also point out
that claimant No.3 had denied the balance sheet for the year 2006-2007 in his
answer to Question No.223.
6.4. According to the learned Senior Counsel, the Tribunal had also
proceeded on the basis that the fourth claimant had received his share of profit
every year without demur and had not taken any action for several years and,
therefore, could not thereafter question the accounts. She would submit that this
reasoning did not take into consideration the manner in which the accounts were
maintained or the specific stand taken by the partners regarding the accounts of
the editions under their control. There was also no admission by the partners
that they had accepted the accounts maintained by the other partners in respect
of those editions.
6.5. The learned Senior Counsel would further submit that the Tribunal
repeatedly relied upon the fact that the accounts had been audited and Income
Tax returns had been filed and, on that basis, refused the request of the fourth
Page No71/.131
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 04:40:03 pm )

O.S.A.No.108 of 2024 and connected appeals
and fifth claimants for an audit of the accounts from the year 2000-2001.
According to her, there was no plea or evidence to show that the appellants had
expressly or impliedly waived their right to question the correctness of the
accounts submitted to the Income Tax Department. Therefore, the finding that
the appellants had not raised or agitated such a dispute was not justified.
6.6. The learned Senior Counsel would submit that the disputes between
the partners had arisen as early as in the year 1999. In that background, the
Tribunal could not have treated the accounts as settled merely because Income
Tax returns had been filed during the pendency of the arbitration proceedings.
She would submit that the parties had also been directed to maintain status quo
and the issue regarding rendition and correctness of accounts continued to
remain in dispute.
6.7. The learned Senior Counsel would further submit that two
applications filed by the fourth claimant were pending before the Arbitral
Tribunal. One application was for raising an additional claim and the other was
for appointment of an Auditor. The additional claim was in respect of rendition
of true and proper accounts by the other partners relating to the editions under
their control. According to her, when such an application was pending, the
Tribunal ought not to have proceeded to hold that the accounts had already been
settled. No proper reason had also been given for rejecting the additional claim.
Page No72/.131
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 04:40:03 pm )

O.S.A.No.108 of 2024 and connected appeals
6.8. The learned Senior Counsel would submit that the Tribunal had, in
effect, shelved the issue of accounts on the ground that examination of the
accounts would take considerable time and would prolong the arbitration
proceedings. According to her, that could not be a ground for refusing to
examine the accounts. As long as the fourth claimant continued to be a partner
of the Firm, he was entitled to seek rendition of accounts. The fact that the Firm
was subsequently dissolved could not take away that right.
6.9. The learned Senior would submit that rendition of accounts was at
the very foundation of the relationship between the partners. According to her,
the disputes had arisen, among other things, on account of the manner in which
claimants 2 and 3 had dealt with the editions under their control and the
allegation that they had acted against the interest of the Firm by starting a
parallel newspaper and siphoning the funds of the Firm. In such circumstances,
the request for proper rendition and examination of accounts could not have
been rejected by simply holding that the accounts had already been settled.
6.10. The learned Senior Counsel would further submit that there was no
issue framed by the Arbitral Tribunal with regard to settlement of the accounts
for the period from 1997-1998 onwards or up to the date of dissolution.
According to her, out of the 45 issues framed by the Tribunal, there was no issue
concerning such settlement of accounts. Nevertheless, the Tribunal proceeded to
Page No73/.131
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 04:40:03 pm )

O.S.A.No.108 of 2024 and connected appeals
hold that the accounts had been settled from the year 1997 onwards and up to
the date of dissolution. She would submit that the learned Judge ought to have
noticed that the finding was outside the issues which had been placed before the
Tribunal.
6.11. The learned Senior would further submit that the applications
seeking forensic audit and examination of the accounts were pending before the
Tribunal. Without deciding those applications, the Tribunal proceeded to record
a finding that the accounts had been settled. According to her, such a finding
was made without properly considering the pleadings and the pending
applications of the appellants and without affording them an effective
opportunity in relation to the said issue.
6.12. The learned Senior Counsel would submit that the Tribunal could
not have refused to undertake the accounts merely on the ground that the
common auditor was already auditing the Firm's accounts. According to her,
taking of accounts upon dissolution was necessary and the existence of an
earlier audit could not by itself conclude the dispute between the partners
regarding the correctness of the accounts.
6.13. The learned Senior Counsel would further submit that the Tribunal
had treated the accounts as settled during the course of the arbitration itself,
even though no such case had been put forward by any of the claimants.
Page No74/.131
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 04:40:03 pm )

O.S.A.No.108 of 2024 and connected appeals
According to her, the Tribunal thus proceeded to decide an issue which had not
been placed before it and thereby denied the partners their right to have access
to and seek proper rendition of the accounts of the Firm.
6.14. The learned Senior Counsel would submit that the finding regarding
settlement of accounts was also contrary to the applications and materials
placed before the Tribunal. She would point out that the disputes regarding the
accounts had continued for several years and that the fourth claimant had
specifically sought an audit and rendition of accounts. Therefore, the conclusion
that the accounts had been settled merely on the basis of the Income Tax returns
and the profits credited to the partners' current accounts was not sustainable.
6.15. The learned Senior Counsel would further submit that the finding
that the accounts had been settled till the date of dissolution was also contrary to
the stand of the appellants and the material on record. According to her, the
Awards dated 28.11.2013 and 15.03.2014, insofar as they proceeded on the
basis that the accounts had already been settled, could not be sustained. The
learned Judge ought to have set aside those findings and directed a proper
forensic audit of the accounts from the year 1997.
6.16. The learned Senior Counsel would submit that the learned Judge
also erred in dealing with the question of winding up of the Firm. According to
her, once the Arbitral Tribunal had dissolved the Firm, the question of dealing
Page No75/.131
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 04:40:03 pm )

O.S.A.No.108 of 2024 and connected appeals
with its assets and liabilities and bringing the affairs of the Firm to an end had to
be considered in the proper manner. She would submit that the finding that the
Tribunal had power to dissolve the Firm but had no power to wind it up was not
correct in the facts of the present case.
6.17. The learned Senior Counsel would further submit that the Firm was
a running concern and did not have any debt, and therefore the Tribunal had
proceeded on the basis that the Firm could be wound up as a going concern.
According to her, the learned Judge ought not to have applied the provisions
relating to winding up of an unregistered company to the facts of the present
case. She would also submit that the Tribunal had considered the question of
winding up and had assigned reasons for the course adopted by it.
6.18. The learned Senior Counsel would submit that the learned Judge
had also erred in holding that there was no provision in the Partnership Deed
relating to distribution of the assets of the dissolved Firm or the manner in
which the accounts were to be dealt with and, therefore, that the Tribunal had no
jurisdiction to wind up the Firm. According to her, the reasoning given by the
Tribunal regarding distribution of the assets of the Firm as a going concern had
not been properly considered by the learned Judge.
6.19. The learned Senior Counsel would further submit that the edition-
wise allotment of the assets of the Firm made by the Tribunal was not the proper
Page No76/.131
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 04:40:03 pm )

O.S.A.No.108 of 2024 and connected appeals
method of dealing with the assets after dissolution. According to her, the assets
ought to have been brought to auction as one unit and the sale proceeds ought to
have been distributed among the partners according to their respective shares,
after discharging the debts and liabilities of the Firm.
6.20. The learned Senior Counsel would submit that even the learned
Judge had noticed that the Tribunal had not arrived at a proper valuation of the
assets of the Firm, including the brand value and other intellectual properties. In
such circumstances, according to her, a proper forensic audit ought to have been
ordered so that the fair value of the Firm could be arrived at. She would submit
that the appellants had also offered to purchase the entire Firm after such proper
forensic audit and valuation.
6.21. Finally, the learned Senior Counsel would submit that the
subsequent mediation proceedings between the partners and their family
members were also relevant to the issue of settlement of accounts. According to
her, the parties had mutually agreed for a forensic audit of the accounts of the
Firm and had proceeded on the basis that the real value of the dissolved Firm
had to be arrived at. She would further submit that the Ernst & Young forensic
audit report was not properly considered. The report recorded that claimants 2
and 3 had failed to furnish the books of accounts required for proper settlement
and valuation and, therefore, the audit could not be completed in the manner
Page No77/.131
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 04:40:03 pm )

O.S.A.No.108 of 2024 and connected appeals
required. Hence, the learned Senior Counsel prayed that the learned Judge
ought to have set aside the said finding and directed proper rendition and audit
of the accounts of the Firm.
7.1. Mr.P.S.Raman, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Claimant
No.5/R.Sathyamurthy, would submit that the common order dated 10.08.2023
passed by the learned Single Judge is unsustainable, insofar as the learned
Single Judge has upheld the First Interim Award dated 28.11.2013, partly set
aside the Second Interim Award dated 15.03.2014 and completely set aside the
Third Interim Award dated 29.09.2018. According to the learned Senior
Counsel, all the three Interim Awards arose out of a single reference of the
disputes in the various suits to arbitration and, therefore, could not have been
dealt with by the learned Single Judge in a piecemeal manner.
7.2. The learned Senior Counsel would submit that the disputes in all the
matters were referred to arbitration by this Court by order dated 23.01.2007,
pursuant to the Memo dated 18.01.2007 filed by all the parties. The Arbitral
Tribunal thereafter framed 45 issues on 18.07.2007. According to him, the First,
Second and Third Interim Awards were only different stages of adjudication of
the composite disputes referred to the same Arbitral Tribunal. Therefore, the
learned Single Judge ought not to have treated the three Interim Awards as
separate and independent Awards and interfered with them separately.
Page No78/.131
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 04:40:03 pm )

O.S.A.No.108 of 2024 and connected appeals
7.3. The learned Senior Counsel would further submit that the three
Interim Awards are interlinked, interdependent and entwined with each other.
According to him, the Second Interim Award dated 15.03.2014 declared the
dissolution of the firm with effect from 27.02.2012, whereas the Third Interim
Award dated 29.09.2018 dealt with the distribution of the assets of the dissolved
firm. Therefore, the distribution of the assets was a sequitur to the Second
Interim Award and could not be severed from it. He would submit that, by partly
interfering with the Second Interim Award and completely setting aside the
Third Interim Award, the learned Single Judge had, in effect, trifurcated a single
arbitral reference.
7.4. The learned Senior Counsel would submit that the Court exercising
jurisdiction under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act has a very
limited and restrictive role. According to him, the Court cannot sit in appeal
over the decision of the Arbitral Tribunal or reappraise the evidence merely
because another view is possible. He would submit that the Tribunal had
considered the relevant issues, pleadings, documents and evidence and had
given detailed reasons. Therefore, unless the Award falls within the grounds
available under Section 34, there could be no interference with the Award. He
Page No79/.131
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 04:40:03 pm )

O.S.A.No.108 of 2024 and connected appeals
would further submit that the Award cannot be interfered with merely on the
ground of reasonableness of the reasons or an alleged mistake of fact. In support
of the said submission, the learned Senior Counsel would rely upon the
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maharashtra State Electricity
Board v. Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd. , [(2001) 8 SCC 482] , and submit that
the Arbitrator’s Award on facts and law is final and that there is no appeal
against such decision. According to him, the Court cannot review the Award and
correct an alleged mistake in adjudication unless the objection to the legality of
the Award is apparent on the face of the Award. He would therefore submit that
the Tribunal is the final judge of the questions of fact and law referred to it.
7.5. The learned Senior Counsel would further rely upon the judgment of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Project Director, NHAI v. M.Hakeem and
another [(2021) 9 SCC 1] , and submit that Section 34 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act does not confer a power upon the Court to modify an arbitral
Award. According to him, the learned Single Judge, by partly setting aside the
Award and directing the parties to approach the Civil Court for implementation
of the dissolution, has, in substance, modified the Award. According to him, the
Tribunal had considered all the relevant issues comprehensively and had
interpreted the same by giving detailed reasons and the objections raised in the
Section 34 petitions did not justify interference with the Awards.
Page No80/.131
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 04:40:03 pm )

O.S.A.No.108 of 2024 and connected appeals
7.6. The learned Senior Counsel would also place reliance upon the
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in McDermott International Inc. v.
Burn Standard Co. Ltd., [(2006) 11 SCC 181] , and submit that the Arbitration
and Conciliation Act provides for a supervisory role for the Court in relation to
an arbitral Award. According to him, intervention is contemplated only in
limited circumstances, such as fraud, bias or violation of natural justice, and the
Court cannot correct errors committed by the Arbitrator.
7.7. The learned Senior Counsel would also submit that the learned Single
Judge ought to have given effect to the order dated 12.09.2013 passed by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP No.14417 of 2013. He would submit that the
parties had entered into a settlement before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and,
under the said order, after passing the First Interim Award, the same learned
Arbitrators were directed to take up the issue of dissolution of the firm and
decide the same in accordance with the procedure evolved by them. According
to him, the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to decide the issue of dissolution was
thus specifically contemplated in the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and
could not subsequently be questioned.
Page No81/.131
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 04:40:03 pm )

O.S.A.No.108 of 2024 and connected appeals
7.8. The learned Senior Counsel would submit that the Appellant, who
was Claimant No.5 before the Arbitral Tribunal, had filed an application dated
27.02.2012 seeking dissolution of the partnership firm with effect from
27.02.2012. Thereafter, in compliance with the order of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court, the Arbitral Tribunal passed the Second Interim Award dated 15.03.2014,
dissolving the firm with effect from 27.02.2012. He would submit that the
partnership deed itself permitted dissolution of the firm at the instance of any
partner and that the application filed by the Appellant was in accordance with
the partnership deed.
7.9. The learned Senior Counsel would further submit that dissolution of
the partnership firm is a matter between the partners and is, therefore, a
proceeding in personam and not in rem. According to him, the dissolution was
sought and decided only between the partners and did not involve determination
of the independent rights of any third party. He would submit that the learned
Single Judge, having recognised that the dissolution of the firm was a matter
falling within the realm of a right in personam, ought not to have set aside the
Award relating to dissolution.
Page No82/.131
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 04:40:03 pm )

O.S.A.No.108 of 2024 and connected appeals
7.10. The learned Senior Counsel would submit that winding up of a
partnership firm is a part of and consequential to the dissolution of the firm. He
would rely upon Section 47 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, and submit that
even after dissolution, the rights and obligations of the partners continue in
respect of matters necessary for winding up the business of the partnership and
completing transactions which were unfinished at the time of dissolution.
Therefore, according to him, the fact that steps had to be taken for winding up
the affairs of the firm after dissolution would not make the dissolution
proceedings in rem. He would further submit that the learned Single Judge erred
in applying the principles relating to winding up of a company to the present
partnership firm. He would submit that the decision in Booz Allen and
Hamilton Inc. v. SBI Home Finance Ltd. and others , [(2011) 5 SCC 532] ,
relied upon in the proceedings, relates to winding up of a company and not to
the winding up of a partnership firm. According to him, the provisions relating
to winding up of a company cannot be automatically applied to a partnership
firm having five partners.
7.11. The learned Senior Counsel would submit that the Arbitral Tribunal
acted only within the four corners of the partnership deed and did not exercise
Page No83/.131
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 04:40:03 pm )

O.S.A.No.108 of 2024 and connected appeals
any power beyond what was conferred upon it by the parties. According to him,
the Tribunal proceeded with the distribution of the assets only pursuant to the
application for dissolution made by the Appellant in accordance with the
partnership deed. He would therefore submit that the finding that the Tribunal
had acted beyond its jurisdiction was not justified.
7.12. The learned Senior Counsel would next submit that the Tribunal had
adopted a practical method for distribution of the assets of the firm. He would
submit that the Tribunal had divided the ten editions of the Dinamalar
newspaper after taking into account various factors, including equalisation of
the value of the editions, minimum business dislocation and allotment of one
metropolitan edition to each of the Claimants. The Tribunal had also given
detailed reasons as to why particular editions were allotted to particular
Claimants. Therefore, according to him, the learned Single Judge ought not to
have interfered with the division and redistribution of the editions merely on the
ground that the partnership deed did not provide a specific method for winding
up and distribution of the assets.
Page No84/.131
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 04:40:03 pm )

O.S.A.No.108 of 2024 and connected appeals
7.13. In this regard, the learned Senior Counsel would rely upon the
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Nabha Power Limited v. Punjab
State Power Corporation Limited & Anr. , [(2018) 11 SCC 508] , and submit
that while interpreting a commercial contract, the commercial intention of the
parties and business efficacy have to be given due consideration. He would
submit that the conditions referred to in the said judgment for applying the
business efficacy test are that the implied term should be reasonable and
equitable, necessary to give business efficacy to the contract, so obvious that it
goes without saying, capable of clear expression, and must not contradict any
express term of the contract.
7.14. The learned Senior Counsel would then submit that Claimant Nos.2
and 3 themselves had raised the issue relating to the trademark before the
Arbitral Tribunal in paragraph 47 of their Claim Statement dated 14.04.2007
and had sought relief concerning the same. According to him, after having
submitted the issue to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, they could not
subsequently challenge the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to decide the said issue.
He would further submit that the objection that the trademark dispute was non-
arbitrable was raised belatedly, only at the stage of filing written submissions
before the Tribunal.
Page No85/.131
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 04:40:03 pm )

O.S.A.No.108 of 2024 and connected appeals
7.15. The learned Senior Counsel would submit that the dispute
concerning the trademark “Dinamalar” was only with regard to the protection
and use of the trademark by the family members and the partners. He would
submit that the Tribunal had not decided any issue concerning infringement or
passing off of the trademark. The Award only dealt with the rights of the
partners inter se after dissolution and permitted the parties to use the registered
trademark in connection with the respective editions allotted to them by
prefixing or suffixing the area, such as “Chennai Dinamalar” or “Dinamalar
Chennai”. According to him, the dispute was therefore in personam and was
arbitrable.
7.16. In support of the above submission, the learned Senior Counsel
would rely upon Hero Electric Vehicles Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. Lectro E-Mobility
Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., [MANU/DE/0379/2021] , wherein the Hon’ble Delhi High
Court held that where the right in the trademark arises from a Family Settlement
Agreement and Trade Mark and Name Agreement, and the right is claimed only
against a specific family group and not against the world at large, the dispute is
in the nature of an action in personam and is capable of being referred to
arbitration.
Page No86/.131
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 04:40:03 pm )

O.S.A.No.108 of 2024 and connected appeals
7.17. The learned Senior Counsel would further rely upon Babulal
Products Private Limited v. Zen Products Mobility Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. ,
[MANU/GJ/0346/2005], wherein it was held that, in the case of dissolution of a
firm, the inter se rights of the partners in respect of the goodwill, trademark and
copyright would have to be determined.
7.18. The learned Senior Counsel would also rely upon Lifestyle Equities
CV v. Q.D. Seatoman Designs Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., [MANU/TN/3292/2017] ,
wherein it was held that a dispute challenging the validity of a patent would not
be arbitrable, whereas a dispute relating to the licensing of a patent could be
arbitrable.
7.19. The learned Senior Counsel would further rely upon Golden
Tobacco Limited v. Golden Tobie Private Limited, [MANU/DE/2461/2021]
particularly paragraph 24, wherein, after considering the judgment in Hero
Electric Vehicles Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. Lectro E-Mobility Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. , the
Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that where the dispute concerns rights between
specific parties and does not involve a right asserted against the world at large,
the same would be in the nature of an action in personam and would be
arbitrable.
Page No87/.131
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 04:40:03 pm )

O.S.A.No.108 of 2024 and connected appeals
7.20. The learned Senior Counsel would submit that, in view of the
aforesaid judgments, IPR disputes relating to rights in rem, such as registration
or grant of trademarks and patents, cannot be referred to arbitration, as such
rights operate against the world at large and involve statutory functions of the
Government. However, where the right claimed arises from an agreement
between the parties and not from any statutory grant, the dispute can be resolved
through arbitration. According to him, the trademark rights determined by the
Tribunal were only between the partners of the partnership firm, who were the
owners of the trademark, and did not concern a dispute between the registered
holder and an infringer. Therefore, the Award did not determine any right
against the world at large and did not amount to a proceeding in rem.
7.21. The learned Senior Counsel would further submit that the Tribunal
was justified in distributing the trademark among the parties to the arbitration.
According to him, since the Claimants had only sought protection and the right
to use the trademark “Dinamalar” by the family members, the Award permitting
each party to use the registered trademark in connection with the edition allotted
to such party, by prefixing or suffixing the area, was sustainable. He would
submit that the learned Single Judge, despite considering the submissions made
Page No88/.131
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 04:40:03 pm )

O.S.A.No.108 of 2024 and connected appeals
on behalf of the Appellant, had set aside the portion of the Award dealing with
dissolution and distribution of the right over the trademark without assigning
sufficient reasons.
7.22. The learned Senior Counsel would submit that there was no
requirement to value the goodwill and reputation of the trademark in the facts of
the present case. According to him, valuation would become necessary only if
one or more partners waived their right to use the trademark after dissolution. In
the present case, however, all the partners were granted liberty to use the
trademark with a prefix or suffix. Therefore, according to him, the question of
valuation of the goodwill and reputation of the trademark did not arise.
7.23. The learned Senior Counsel would further submit that the learned
Single Judge ought to have considered that the parties had spent substantial time
in litigation before various forums. According to him, by holding that the
Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to distribute the assets and by relegating the
parties to another round of litigation, the learned Single Judge had caused
substantial failure of justice to the parties.
Page No89/.131
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 04:40:03 pm )

O.S.A.No.108 of 2024 and connected appeals
7.24. The learned Senior Counsel would lastly submit that the First,
Second and Third Interim Awards arose out of a single composite reference; that
the Tribunal acted within the scope of the partnership deed and the reference;
and that the learned Single Judge ought not to have interfered with the Awards
in a piecemeal manner. Hence, the learned Senior Counsel prays that
appropriate orders be passed.
8.1. Mr.A.L.Somayaji, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the legal
heirs of the deceased second claimant, Dr.R.Krishnamoorthy, would submit that
the disputes between the parties were referred to the Arbitral Tribunal pursuant
to the Memo dated 18.01.2007 and the order dated 23.01.2007. He would
submit that the fifth claimant, R.Sathyamurthy, thereafter issued the dissolution
notice dated 27.02.2012. The learned Senior Counsel would further submit that
the said issue was taken before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and, by order dated
12.09.2013, the Hon’ble Supreme Court directed the Tribunal to first decide the
45 issues framed on 18.07.2007 and thereafter decide the question of dissolution
in accordance with the procedure evolved by the Tribunal.
Page No90/.131
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 04:40:03 pm )

O.S.A.No.108 of 2024 and connected appeals
8.2. The learned Senior Counsel would submit that, after deciding the 45
issues, the Tribunal proceeded to consider the allotment and distribution of the
editions and assets of the firm. He would submit that the Tribunal proceeded as
though the matter was one of partition of the properties, whereas the direction of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court was to decide the question of dissolution after
deciding the 45 issues. He would therefore submit that the Tribunal ought to
have first considered whether it had jurisdiction to deal with dissolution and
winding up of the firm.
8.3. The learned Senior Counsel would further submit that, after
dissolution, the procedure under Section 48 of the Partnership Act had to be
followed for settling the affairs of the firm. He would submit that the claims of
creditors, debtors and other third parties could not be decided by the Arbitral
Tribunal when such persons were not parties to the arbitration proceedings. He
would therefore contend that the Tribunal could not distribute the assets of the
firm without considering the rights and claims of such third parties, including
secured and unsecured creditors, employees and banks.
8.4. The learned Senior Counsel would submit that the Tribunal could not
proceed with the winding up of the firm in the manner adopted by it. He would
submit that the Tribunal could not act as a Court for winding up the firm or as a
Page No91/.131
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 04:40:03 pm )

O.S.A.No.108 of 2024 and connected appeals
Liquidator for settling the claims of third parties. According to him, the Tribunal
therefore could not have proceeded with the distribution of the editions and
assets of the firm without first considering its jurisdiction to undertake such a
process. Hence, the learned Senior Counsel prays that the appeals be dismissed.
9.1. Mr.Abdul Saleem, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the third
claimant/Dr.R.Lakshmipathy, would submit that all the clauses in the
Partnership Deed have to be read together. He would submit that merely
because one of the partners expressed his consent or intention to dissolve the
firm, the partnership could not automatically be treated as a partnership at will
without considering the other terms of the Partnership Deed, the nature of the
business and the interests of the partners. He would contend that this aspect was
not properly considered by the Tribunal while passing the three Awards.
9.2. The learned Senior Counsel would further submit that the Tribunal
came to deal with the question of dissolution only pursuant to the direction of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court. He would submit that the Tribunal was first
required to decide the 45 issues and that, after deciding those issues, it ought to
have considered whether it had jurisdiction to proceed further with the
dissolution and winding up of the firm. According to him, the Tribunal could
not proceed further without first considering its jurisdiction in this regard.
Page No92/.131
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 04:40:03 pm )

O.S.A.No.108 of 2024 and connected appeals
9.3. The learned Senior Counsel would submit that, after dissolution, the
assets and liabilities of the firm had to be dealt with in accordance with Section
48 of the Partnership Act. He would submit that the claims of creditors and
debtors and the rights of third parties could not be decided by the Arbitral
Tribunal, particularly when such persons were not parties to the proceedings.
According to him, the Tribunal therefore could not proceed with the dissolution
and winding up of the firm in the manner adopted in the Awards.
9.4. The learned Senior Counsel would further submit that the
participation of the second claimant in the arbitral proceedings did not amount
to waiver of the objection regarding the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. He would
submit that participation in the proceedings could not give jurisdiction to the
Tribunal where such jurisdiction was otherwise absent. He would further submit
that the Tribunal could decide disputes between the partners, but could not
decide matters involving a right in rem. In particular, he would contend that the
“Dinamalar” trademark could not have been divided by the Tribunal in the
arbitral proceedings. Hence, the learned Senior Counsel prays that the appeals
be dismissed.
10. We have heard Mr.Vijay Narayan, learned Senior Counsel appearing
for the appellants, who are the legal heirs of the first claimant; Mrs.Chitra
Sampath, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants, who are the legal
Page No93/.131
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 04:40:03 pm )

O.S.A.No.108 of 2024 and connected appeals
heirs of the fourth claimant; Mr.P.S.Raman, learned Senior Counsel appearing
for the fifth claimant, who is the appellant; Mr.A.L.Somayaji, learned Senior
Counsel appearing for the second claimant; and Mr.Abdul Saleem, learned
Senior Counsel appearing for the third claimant.
11. It is not in dispute that M/s.Dinamalar is a partnership firm carrying
on the business of publication of the Tamil daily newspaper “Dinamalar”. The
newspaper was started in the year 1951 by late T.V.Ramasubbiyer. His five sons,
namely, R.Venkitapathy, R.Krishnamoorthy, R.Lakshmipathy, R.Raghavan and
R.Sathyamurthy, became the partners of the firm. A partnership deed was
entered into between the five partners on 23.03.1997. Each partner was entitled
to a 20% share in the partnership. Clause 4 of the partnership deed provided that
the partnership was a partnership “at will”. The firm was carrying on its
business through various editions of “Dinamalar”, including Tirunelveli,
Tiruchirappalli, Chennai, Madurai, Erode, Pondicherry, Coimbatore, Vellore,
Nagercoil and Salem. Disputes arose between the partners and the matter was
referred to arbitration pursuant to a memorandum dated 18.01.2007 and the
order of reference dated 23.01.2007. Forty-five issues were framed by the
Tribunal on 18.07.2007. During the pendency of the arbitral proceedings, one of
the partners issued a notice dated 27.02.2012 expressing his intention to
dissolve the partnership under Clause 4 of the partnership deed and Section 43
of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932. The partnership deed having provided that
Page No94/.131
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 04:40:03 pm )

O.S.A.No.108 of 2024 and connected appeals
the partnership was “at will”, the firm could be dissolved by any partner by
giving notice in writing to the other partners in accordance with Section 43 of
the Partnership Act. The notice dated 27.02.2012 was issued in exercise of that
right. The validity of the notice and the consequent dissolution was considered
in the proceedings and has been accepted. The learned Single Judge has also
accepted that the partnership was a partnership at will and that the dissolution
was valid.
12. The jurisdiction of the Tribunal to deal with the question of
dissolution was challenged before this Court. The challenge was rejected.
Thereafter, the matter was carried before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. By order
dated 12.09.2013 in S.L.P.No.14417 of 2013, the Hon’ble Supreme Court
directed the arbitral proceedings to first decide the original forty-five issues and
thereafter take up the question of dissolution in accordance with the procedure
evolved in the proceedings. The Tribunal thereafter passed the First Interim
Award dated 28.11.2013, holding that all the five partners were entitled to an
equal one-fifth share. The Second Interim Award dated 15.03.2014 dealt with
the dissolution of the firm and held that the firm stood dissolved with effect
from 27.02.2012. Thereafter, the Tribunal passed the Third Interim Award dated
29.09.2018 dealing with the consequences of dissolution, including the affairs
of the firm, its editions, properties, goodwill, trademark and other matters
concerning the settlement of the rights of the partners. The learned Single
Page No95/.131
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 04:40:03 pm )

O.S.A.No.108 of 2024 and connected appeals
Judge, by the common order dated 10.08.2023, upheld the jurisdiction of the
Tribunal to deal with dissolution. However, the learned Single Judge held that,
after dissolution, the Tribunal could not proceed with the subsequent winding up
of the firm in the manner in which it had done and that certain matters dealt
with in the Third Interim Award were beyond the jurisdiction of the Tribunal.
The learned Single Judge also examined the issues relating to accounts,
valuation, goodwill and trademark and interfered with the Awards to the extent
indicated in the impugned order.
13. The main contention of Mr.Vijay Narayan, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the legal-heirs of the first claimant is that the learned Single Judge
had travelled beyond the limited scope of jurisdiction under Section 34 of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. According to him, the Tribunal had
considered the evidence, accounts, valuation and other materials placed before it
and had only worked out the rights of the partners arising from the dissolution.
It was submitted that the Tribunal had not assumed the role of a liquidator and
that the Third Interim Award was a continuation of the earlier Awards passed in
the same arbitral proceedings.
14. The primary contention of Mrs.Chitra Sampath, learned Senior
Counsel appearing for the legal-heirs of the fourth claimant is that the accounts
could not be treated as having been finally settled. According to her, the
Page No96/.131
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 04:40:03 pm )

O.S.A.No.108 of 2024 and connected appeals
accounts were disputed, proper books and records were not made available and
applications concerning rendition of accounts and audit were pending. She
submitted that proper accounts, audit and valuation ought to have been
completed before distribution of the assets. It was further submitted that the
edition-wise distribution was improper and that the assets ought to have been
valued and dealt with as a whole. She also contended that the learned Single
Judge ought to have directed proper rendition of accounts, forensic audit and
valuation.
15. The foremost contention of Mr.P.S.Raman, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the fifth claimant is that the First, Second and Third Interim
Awards formed part of one continuous arbitral process arising out of the same
reference. According to him, once the Tribunal had jurisdiction to decide the
disputes between the partners, it necessarily had jurisdiction to determine the
consequences of dissolution and settle the partners’ rights in the assets and
business of the firm. He submitted that the learned Single Judge had exceeded
the scope of Section 34 in interfering with the Second and Third Interim
Awards.
16. The main contention of Mr.A.L.Somayaji, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the legal-heirs of the second claimant is that dissolution and
winding up are distinct matters. According to him, after dissolution, the Tribunal
Page No97/.131
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 04:40:03 pm )

O.S.A.No.108 of 2024 and connected appeals
could not assume unlimited powers and could not adjudicate upon the rights of
creditors, debtors, employees, statutory authorities or other third parties who
were not parties to the arbitration. He also submitted that participation of the
parties in the proceedings could not, by itself, confer jurisdiction upon the
Tribunal.
17. The paramount contention of Mr.Abdul Saleem, learned Senior
Counsel appearing for the third claimant is that the partnership deed had to be
read as a whole. According to him, the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
required the Tribunal to first decide the original forty-five issues and thereafter
take up the question of dissolution in accordance with the procedure evolved in
the proceedings. He submitted that, after dissolution, the Tribunal could not
assume the powers of a liquidator and proceed to determine matters affecting
persons who were not parties to the arbitration.
18. Based on the above submissions advanced by the learned Senior
Counsel, the following points arise for consideration:
(i) Whether, after dissolution of the Firm, the Tribunal had jurisdiction to
continue the arbitral proceedings and deal with the consequences of dissolution,
including winding up the affairs of the Firm and settling the inter se rights of the
partners?
Page No98/.131
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 04:40:03 pm )

O.S.A.No.108 of 2024 and connected appeals
(ii) Whether the learned Single Judge was justified in setting aside the
consequential directions in the Second Interim Award dated 15.03.2014 and the
entire Third Interim Award dated 29.09.2018 under Section 34 of the Arbitration
and Conciliation Act, 1996?
Point No.1
19. Before delving into the points arise for consideration in these appeals,
it would be appropriate to refer to Sections 43 to 48 of the Indian Partnership
Act, 1932, which deal with dissolution of a firm and the consequences thereof.
The relevant provisions are extracted hereunder:
“43. Dissolution by notice of partnership at will:-
(1)Where the partnership is at will, the firm may be dissolved by any
partner giving notice in writing to all the other partners of his
intention to dissolve the firm.
(2) The firm is dissolved as from the date mentioned in the notice as the
date of dissolution or, if no date is so mentioned, as from the date of the
communication of the notice.
44. Dissolution by the Court.—
At the suit of a partner, the Court may dissolve a firm on any of the
following grounds, namely:—
(a) that a partner has become of unsound mind, in which case the suit may
be brought as well by the next friend of the partner who has become of
unsound mind as by any other partner;
(b) that a partner, other than the partner suing, has become in any way
permanently incapable of performing his duties as partner;
(c)that a partner, other than the partner suing, is guilty of conduct which
is likely to affect prejudicially the carrying on of the business, regard
being had to the nature of the business;
Page No99/.131
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 04:40:03 pm )

O.S.A.No.108 of 2024 and connected appeals
(d) that a partner, other than the partner suing, wilfully or persistently
commits breach of agreements relating to the management of the
affairs of the firm or the conduct of its business, or otherwise so
conducts himself in matters relating to the business that it is not
reasonably practicable for the other partners to carry on the business
in partnership with him;
(e)that a partner, other than the partner suing, has in any way transferred
the whole of his interest in the firm to a third party, or has allowed his
share to be charged under the provisions of rule 49 of Order XXI of the
First Schedule to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) or has
allowed it to be sold in the recovery of arrears of land revenue or of
any dues recoverable as arrears of land revenue due by the partner;
(f) that the business of the firm cannot be carried on save at a loss; or
(g)on any other ground which renders it just and equitable that the firm
should be dissolved.
45 . Liability for acts of partners done after dissolution:-
(1) Notwithstanding the dissolution of a firm, the partners
continue to be liable as such to third parties for any act done by any of
them which would have been an act of the firm if done before the
dissolution, until public notice is given of the dissolution:
Provided that the estate of a partner who dies, or who is
adjudicated an insolvent, or of a partner who, not having been known
to the person dealing with the firm to be a partner, retires from the
firm, is not liable under this section for acts done after the date on
which he ceases to be a partner.
(2) Notices under sub-section (1) may be given by any
partner.
46. Right of partners to have business wound up after
dissolution:-
On the dissolution of a firm every partner or his representative
is entitled, as against all the other partners or their representatives, to
have the property of the firm applied in payment of the debts and
liabilities of the firm, and to have the surplus distributed among the
partners or their representatives according to their rights.
47. Continuing authority of partners for purposes of winding
up.
After the dissolution of a firm the authority of each partner to
bind the firm, and the other mutual rights and obligations of the
Page No100/.131
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 04:40:03 pm )

O.S.A.No.108 of 2024 and connected appeals
partners continue notwithstanding the dissolution, so far as may be
necessary to wind up the affair of the firm and to complete
transactions begun but unfinished at the time of the dissolution, but not
otherwise:
Provided that the firm is in no case bound by the acts of a
partner who has been adjudicated insolvent; but this proviso does not
affect the liability of any person who has after the adjudication
represented himself or knowingly permitted himself to be represented
as a partner of the insolvent.
48. Mode of settlement of accounts between partners.—
In settling the accounts of a firm after dissolution, the following rules
shall, subject to agreement by the partners, be observed:
(a) losses, including deficiencies of capital, shall be paid first out of
profits, next out of capital, and, lastly, if necessary, by the partners
individually in the proportions in which they were entitled to share
profits;
(b) the assets of the firm, including any sums contributed by the partners
to make up deficiencies of capital, shall be applied in the following
manner and order:—
(i) in paying the debts of the firm to third parties;
(ii) in paying to each partner rateably what is due to him from the firm for
advances as distinguished from capital;
(iii) in paying to each partner rateably what is due to him on account of
capital; and
(iv) the residue, if any, shall be divided among the partners in the
proportions in which they were entitled to share profits.”
A reading of these provisions makes the legal position clear. Section 43
provides for dissolution of a partnership at will by notice, while Sections 46 to
48 deal with the consequences that follow after dissolution, including winding
up of the affairs of the Firm and settlement of the partners' accounts. In the
present case, the Tribunal did not dissolve the Firm under Section 44. The Firm
Page No101/.131
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 04:40:03 pm )

O.S.A.No.108 of 2024 and connected appeals
stood dissolved pursuant to the notice issued under Section 43. The learned
Single Judge has accepted that the Firm was a partnership at will, that the notice
dated 27.02.2012 was valid and that the Tribunal had jurisdiction to decide the
question of dissolution. The validity of the dissolution is, therefore, no longer in
question before us. The real question is whether the arbitral reference came to
an end merely because the Firm stood dissolved, or whether the Tribunal could
continue the same proceedings to determine the consequences of dissolution and
the rights of the partners arising therefrom.
20. Dissolution and settlement of the affairs of a dissolved Firm are two
different stages, but they form part of the same process. Dissolution brings the
partnership relationship to an end. It does not, by itself, settle the accounts of
the Firm, deal with its assets and liabilities, or determine what each partner is
entitled to receive. The affairs of the Firm must still be dealt with after
dissolution. The assets and liabilities have to be accounted for and the rights and
entitlements of the partners have to be worked out.
21. Sections 46 to 48 of the Partnership Act recognise this position.
Section 46 gives every partner, after dissolution, the right to have the property
of the Firm applied towards its debts and liabilities and the surplus distributed
Page No102/.131
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 04:40:03 pm )

O.S.A.No.108 of 2024 and connected appeals
according to the rights of the partners. Section 47 continues the authority of the
partners, to the extent necessary, for winding up the affairs of the Firm and
completing transactions already begun. Section 48 provides the manner in
which the accounts are to be settled. Thus, dissolution does not mean that every
matter between the partners comes to an end on the date of dissolution. The
rights and entitlements arising from the dissolution still have to be determined.
22. The present case has also to be considered in the background of the
manner in which the arbitral proceedings proceeded from the beginning. The
reference was made in the year 2007 and forty-five issues were framed on
18.07.2007. During the course of the same arbitral proceedings, the notice of
dissolution dated 27.02.2012 was issued. The jurisdiction of the Tribunal to deal
with the question of dissolution was specifically questioned. The Tribunal
rejected that objection and the matter was carried to the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
23. By order dated 12.09.2013 in S.L.P.No.14417 of 2013, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court directed the Tribunal to first decide the original forty-five issues
and thereafter take up the question of dissolution in accordance with the
procedure evolved in the proceedings. The Hon'ble Supreme Court did not
direct the parties to commence a fresh proceeding after dissolution. The
direction was in the context of the same arbitral reference.
Page No103/.131
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 04:40:03 pm )

O.S.A.No.108 of 2024 and connected appeals
24. Pursuant to the said direction, the Tribunal passed the First Interim
Award dated 28.11.2013, determining that all five partners were entitled to
equal one-fifth shares. Thereafter, by the Second Interim Award dated
15.03.2014, the Tribunal held that the Firm stood dissolved with effect from
27.02.2012. The Third Interim Award dated 29.09.2018 thereafter dealt with the
consequences of dissolution, including the affairs of the Firm, its assets and
editions, valuation, goodwill, trademark and the respective rights and
entitlements of the partners.
25. The three Awards cannot, therefore, be viewed as three unrelated
proceedings. They arose out of the same arbitral reference, concerned the same
partnership and involved the same parties. The First Interim Award determined
the shares of the partners. The Second Interim Award dealt with dissolution. The
Third Interim Award dealt with the consequences which followed from that
dissolution. The fact that these matters were dealt with by separate Interim
Awards does not make the Third Interim Award a fresh dispute outside the
original reference.
26. If the Tribunal were required to stop immediately after declaring that
the Firm stood dissolved, the parties would be left with a declaration of
dissolution without determination of the rights and entitlements arising from it.
The same parties would then have to commence another proceeding for matters
Page No104/.131
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 04:40:03 pm )

O.S.A.No.108 of 2024 and connected appeals
directly arising from the dispute already referred to arbitration. Such an
interpretation would not give full effect to the arbitral reference or to the
directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.L.P.No.14417 of 2013.
27. The finding of the learned Single Judge that only the Civil Court has
the power to deal with consequential proceedings arising out of the dissolution
and winding up of the Firm is, in our view, unsustainable. The present case
concerns the dissolution of a partnership firm and the settlement of disputes
between its partners, and not the winding up of a company. The dissolution of
the Firm does not, by itself, preclude the continuation of arbitral proceedings
concerning disputes between the partners. The Tribunal could, therefore,
proceed with the arbitration and adjudicate upon the disputes referred to it
between the partners, including disputes arising out of the dissolution of the
Firm and the consequential relief sought.
28. In this regard, it would be useful to refer to the judgment of the
Telangana High Court in Shameem Sultana Khan v. Faizunnissa Begum and
Others [Manu/TL/0339/2024]. The said case involved a dispute between the
partners of a dissolved firm, including the settlement of their accounts. The
Court considered whether such disputes could be referred to arbitration. The
relevant portion of the said judgment is extracted hereunder:
Page No105/.131
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 04:40:03 pm )

O.S.A.No.108 of 2024 and connected appeals
“5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the respondents have
not disputed the execution of the Partnership Deed dated 01.04.1994 and had
not denied the existence of the arbitration clause. It is submitted that the
dispute has arisen between the parties, which is required to be resolved in the
manner agreed to by the parties.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 3 to 6
has submitted that the power of the arbitrator under the Partnership Deed dated
01.04.1994 is circumscribe and the relief to claim settlement of the accounts is
outside Clause 19 of the Partnership Deed dated 01.04.1994 executed between
the parties. It is further submitted that dispute relating to insolvency and
winding up matters is a non-arbitrable dispute. In support of aforesaid
submission, reliance has been placed on decisions of Supreme Court in Booz
Allen & Hamilton Inc. v. SBI Home Finance Ltd. and Duro Felguera, S.A. v.
Gangavaram Port Limited.
7. I have considered the rival submissions made on both sides and have
perused the record.
8. Before proceeding further, it is apposite to mention that the existence
of the Partnership Deed dated 01.04.1994 as well as the arbitration clause has
not been denied on behalf of contesting respondents.
9. Clause 19 of the Partnership Deed dated 01.04.1994 reads as under:
"19. Should any dispute or doubt or question arise between
the Partners in respect of the Partnership or its affairs in respect of
any matter touching the construction or interpretation of any matter
of this Deed, the same shall be referred to arbitration in accordance
with the Law of Arbitration in force and applicable."
10. Section 16(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
provides that the arbitral Tribunal may rule on its own jurisdiction. In
Uttarakhand Purv Sainik Kalyan Nigam Limited v. Northern Coal Field
Limited, a two-Judge Bench of Supreme Court held that the doctrine of
kompetenz-kompetenz is intended to minimise judicial intervention, so that
the arbitral process is not thwarted at the threshold when a preliminary
objection is raised by one of the parties. It was further held that Section 16 of
the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is an inclusive provision of very
wide ambit.
Page No106/.131
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 04:40:03 pm )

O.S.A.No.108 of 2024 and connected appeals
11. A seven-Judge Bench of Supreme Court in In Re: Interplay
between Arbitration Agreements under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,
1996 and the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 has comprehensively dealt with the
aforesaid issue and in paragraphs 131, 132 and 162 has held as under:
"131. In Indian Farmers Fertilizer Cooperative Limited v.
Bhadra Products [(2018) 2 SCC 534], one of the issues before this
Court was whether a decision on the issue of limitation would go to
the root of the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal, and therefore be
covered by Section 16 of the Arbitration Act. This Court referred to
Section 16(1) to observe that "the Arbitral Tribunal may rule on its
own jurisdiction, which makes it clear that it refers to whether the
Arbitral Tribunal may embark upon an inquiry into the issues raised
by the parties to the dispute." In Bhadra Products (supra), it was held
that the issue of limitation concerns the jurisdiction of the tribunal
which tries the proceedings.
132. In Uttarakhand Purv Sainik Kalyan Nigam Ltd. v.
Northern Coal Field (supra), the issue before this Court was whether
a referral court at the stage of appointment of arbitrators would be
required to decide the issue of limitation or leave it to the arbitral
tribunal. A Bench of two Judges of this Court held that the doctrine of
competence-competence is "intended to minimize judicial
intervention, so that the arbitral process is not thwarted at the
threshold, when a preliminary objection is raised by one of the
parties."
Moreover, this Court held that Section 16 is an inclusive
provision of very wide ambit:
"7.13. In view of the provisions of Section 16, and the
legislative policy to restrict judicial intervention at the pre-reference
stage, the issue of limitation would require to be decided by the
arbitrator. Sub-section (1) of Section 16 provides that the Arbitral
Tribunal may rule on its own jurisdiction, "including any objections"
with respect to the existence or validity of the arbitration agreement.
Section 16 is an inclusive provision, which would
comprehend all preliminary issues touching upon the jurisdiction of
the Arbitral Tribunal. The issue of limitation is a jurisdictional issue,
which would be required to be decided by the arbitrator under
Section 16, and not the High Court at the pre-reference stage under
Section 11 of the Act. Once the existence of the arbitration agreement
Page No107/.131
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 04:40:03 pm )

O.S.A.No.108 of 2024 and connected appeals
is not disputed, all issues, including jurisdictional objections are to be
decided by the arbitrator."
(emphasis supplied)
162. The legislature confined the scope of reference under
Section 11(6A) to the examination of the existence of an arbitration
agreement. The use of the term "examination" in itself connotes that
the scope of the power is limited to a prima facie determination.
Since the Arbitration Act is a self-contained code, the requirement of
"existence" of an arbitration agreement draws effect from Section 7
of the Arbitration Act. In Duro Felguera, S.A. v. Gangavaram Port
Ltd. (supra), this Court held that the referral courts only need to
consider one aspect to determine the existence of an arbitration
agreement - whether the underlying contract contains an arbitration
agreement which provides for arbitration pertaining to the disputes
which have arisen between the parties to the agreement. Therefore,
the scope of examination under Section 11(6A) should be confined to
the existence of an arbitration agreement on the basis of Section 7.
Similarly, the validity of an arbitration agreement, in view of
Section 7, should be restricted to the requirement of formal validity
such as the requirement that the agreement be in writing. This
interpretation also gives true effect to the doctrine of competence-
competence by leaving the issue of substantive existence and validity
of an arbitration agreement to be decided by arbitral tribunal under
Section 16. We accordingly clarify the position of law laid down in
Vidya Drolia vs. Durga Trading Corporation [(2021) 2 SCC 1] in the
context of Section 8 and Section 11 of the Arbitration Act."
12. Applying the aforesaid legal principles to the obtaining factual
matrix of the case, it can safely be inferred that all the objections with
regard to jurisdiction of the arbitrator to deal with the claim made on
behalf of the applicant can be raised and can be urged before the arbitral
Tribunal itself. In Booz Allen & Hamilton Inc. (supra) in paragraph 36
while referring to well recognized examples of non-arbitrable disputes,
the Supreme Court, by way of illustration, referred to insolvency and
winding-up of a company, whereas the instant dispute is between the
partners under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932.”
(emphasis supplied)
Page No108/.131
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 04:40:03 pm )

O.S.A.No.108 of 2024 and connected appeals
29. It is also pertinent to note that dissolution of a partnership firm and
the settlement of accounts arising therefrom are closely connected. Reference
may also be made to Mahendra Kumar Poddar v. Bansal Builders and Others ,
[ AIR 2001 Cal 58]. In that case also, the Calcutta High Court considered
disputes between partners after the dissolution of a partnership, including the
settlement of their rights and accounts. The relevant portion of the said
judgment is extracted hereunder:
“22. Dissolution of partnership cannot be equated with the winding up
of the company. In a case of winding up of a company it can be held either by
the Court or voluntary or subject to the supervision of the Court. In the event
winding up of a Company is not a money claim simpliciter between
two parties. In further a Company has a distinct personality from the members
composing it. The property of the Company does not belong to the members
and such members cannot be sued individually. On the other hand members of
a partnership firm can be said individuals and also in the name of partnership
firm since the partners are responsible for the firm.
23. Winding up of a Company even voluntary it has to be notified in
the official gazatte and if necessary. Government through the Official
Liquidator is needed to be interfered. On the other hand dissolution of a
partnership firm is private action between the partners.”
The judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Booz Allen & Hamilton Inc. v.
SBI Home Finance Ltd., [(2011) 5 SCC 532], relied upon by the learned Single
Judge, dealt with a different issue. With great respect, the observations made in
the said judgment regarding winding up were in relation to a company and the
relief sought in those proceedings. The said judgment did not concern the
dissolution of a partnership firm or the rights and liabilities arising between
partners after dissolution. The present case, however, concerns a partnership
Page No109/.131
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 04:40:03 pm )

O.S.A.No.108 of 2024 and connected appeals
firm which had already been dissolved and the rights and liabilities arising
between the partners thereafter.
30. The question of any independent third-party interest also does not
arise on the facts of the present case. After publication of the notice of
dissolution in the Official Gazette on 21.03.2012 and in the “ Dinamani ”
newspaper on 13.03.2012, no third party came forward claiming any interest in
the Firm or its assets. No third-party claim was filed before the Tribunal and no
such claim arose for adjudication in these proceedings. Therefore, the Tribunal
was not called upon to determine the rights of persons who were not parties to
the arbitration. Therefore, with great respect, the observations made in Booz
Allen with regard to the winding up of a company cannot be directly applied to
the present dispute concerning a dissolved partnership firm.
31. It is pertinent to mention that the original partners were the five sons
of late T.V.Ramasubbiyer. The present proceedings concern those partners, their
legal heirs and representatives. The Tribunal was, therefore, dealing with the
rights and obligations arising out of the partnership between the parties before
it. It was not called upon to adjudicate any independent claim brought by a
stranger to the Firm or to the arbitral proceedings. Even after publication of the
Page No110/.131
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 04:40:03 pm )

O.S.A.No.108 of 2024 and connected appeals
notice in the Official Gazette and the newspaper, no third party came forward
claiming any interest in the Firm or its assets.
32. In these circumstances, we are unable to accept the argument that the
Tribunal became functus officio merely because the Firm was dissolved. The
dissolution brought the partnership to an end, but it did not automatically bring
the ongoing arbitration to an end. The Tribunal was still required to decide the
consequences of the dissolution and the rights of the parties.
33. The expression “winding up” used in the Third Interim Award must be
understood in this context. This case concerns the dissolution of a partnership
Firm and not the winding up of a company. The Tribunal was not acting as a
statutory liquidator or exercising the powers of a Company Court. It was
dealing with the affairs of the dissolved Firm as part of the existing arbitration,
to settle the accounts and determine the rights of the partners arising from the
dissolution.
34. After dissolution, the affairs of the Firm have to be settled and the
accounts between the partners have to be worked out. For this purpose, the
Page No111/.131
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 04:40:03 pm )

O.S.A.No.108 of 2024 and connected appeals
Tribunal had to consider, as necessary, the assets, liabilities, accounts, business,
editions, goodwill and other matters relating to the Firm.
35. Merely considering these matters does not mean that the Tribunal
exceeded its jurisdiction. The question is whether the Tribunal dealt with
matters arising from the dissolution and the rights of the partners within the
scope of the existing arbitration. In the present case, the Tribunal considered the
affairs and assets of the Firm for that purpose.
36. The same principle applies to the “Dinamalar” name, goodwill and
trademark. The Tribunal was concerned with their relevance to the partnership
business and the consequences of its dissolution. It was not deciding the validity
or registration of the trademark, any claim of infringement or passing off, or any
independent claim to the trademark against persons outside the arbitral
proceedings.
37. Section 55 of the Partnership Act specifically deals with the sale of
goodwill after dissolution. The statutory scheme, therefore, provides for the sale
of goodwill in the course of settling the affairs of a dissolved Firm. To the extent
that the value attributable to the “Dinamalar” name or trademark formed part of
Page No112/.131
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 04:40:03 pm )

O.S.A.No.108 of 2024 and connected appeals
the value of the business and its goodwill, the Tribunal could take that aspect
into account for the limited purpose of determining the inter se rights and
entitlements of the parties.
38. At the risk of repetition, the Tribunal considered the “Dinamalar”
name, goodwill and trademark in the context of the dissolution of the Firm and
the rights of the partners. The dispute arose between the partners. The Tribunal
was not called upon to decide any independent claim by a third party or to
determine rights against the public at large.
39. The distinction is important. A dispute concerning the validity of a
registered trademark, infringement, passing off or rights enforceable against the
public at large may stand on a different footing. The present dispute, however,
was between the parties to the partnership. The Tribunal considered the
“Dinamalar” name, goodwill and business while determining the consequences
of dissolution and the rights of the parties between themselves.
40. Consequently, the consideration of the “Dinamalar” name, goodwill
and trademark did not convert the arbitral proceedings into proceedings
Page No113/.131
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 04:40:03 pm )

O.S.A.No.108 of 2024 and connected appeals
concerning an independent trademark dispute. The Tribunal remained concerned
with the partnership, its dissolution and the rights and entitlements of the parties
arising therefrom.
41. In these circumstances, there is no basis to hold that the Tribunal was
adjudicating upon any independent right of a person outside the arbitral
proceedings. No third-party claim was before the Tribunal. The issue remained
one concerning the partnership, its dissolution and the rights of the parties
arising therefrom. The consideration of the “Dinamalar” name, goodwill and
trademark, therefore, cannot by itself be treated as taking the dispute outside the
scope of arbitration.
42. For the foregoing reasons, we hold that the dissolution of the Firm on
27.02.2012 did not, by itself, terminate the pending arbitral reference. The
Tribunal was not rendered functus officio merely because the Firm stood
dissolved. It could continue the pending proceedings and adjudicate the disputes
arising from the dissolution and the inter se rights of the partners. The
continuation of the arbitral proceedings, however, would not, by itself, confer
upon the Tribunal any authority to adjudicate the independent rights of third
parties who were not parties to the arbitration or to exercise powers beyond
Page No114/.131
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 04:40:03 pm )

O.S.A.No.108 of 2024 and connected appeals
those conferred by the arbitration agreement and the applicable law. The first
point for consideration is accordingly answered in favour of the appellants.
Point No. 2
43. Having answered Point No.1, we now consider whether the learned
Single Judge was justified in setting aside the consequential directions in the
Second Interim Award dated 15.03.2014 and the entire Third Interim Award
dated 29.09.2018. The learned Single Judge upheld the declaration that the Firm
stood dissolved with effect from 27.02.2012 and also upheld the First Interim
Award dated 28.11.2013. However, the consequential directions in the Second
Interim Award were set aside, and the Third Interim Award was set aside in its
entirety.
44. The scope of interference with an arbitral award under Section 34 of
the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, is limited. The Court does not sit in
appeal over an award and cannot reappreciate the evidence merely because
another view is possible. In MMTC Ltd. v. Vedanta Ltd., [(2019) 4 SCC 163]
the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated that interference with an arbitral award is
permissible only on the limited grounds provided under Section 34. The
relevant portion of the judgment is extracted below:
Page No115/.131
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 04:40:03 pm )

O.S.A.No.108 of 2024 and connected appeals
“ 11. As far as Section 34 is concerned, the position is well-settled by
now that the Court does not sit in appeal over the arbitral award and may
interfere on merits on the limited ground provided under Section 34(2)( b )( ii )
i.e. if the award is against the public policy of India. As per the legal position
clarified through decisions of this Court prior to the amendments to the 1996
Act in 2015, a violation of Indian public policy, in turn, includes a violation of
the fundamental policy of Indian law, a violation of the interest of India,
conflict with justice or morality, and the existence of patent illegality in the
arbitral award. Additionally, the concept of the “fundamental policy of Indian
law” would cover compliance with statutes and judicial precedents, adopting a
judicial approach, compliance with the principles of natural justice, and
Wednesbury [ Associated Provincial Picture Houses v. Wednesbury Corpn. ,
(1948) 1 KB 223 (CA)] reasonableness. Furthermore, “patent illegality” itself
has been held to mean contravention of the substantive law of India,
contravention of the 1996 Act, and contravention of the terms of the contract.”
45. The above principle was reiterated in Consolidated Construction
Consortium Limited v. Software Technology Parks of India, [2025 INSC 574] .
The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that Section 34 is not an appellate provision
and that, where two views are possible, the Court cannot reappraise the
evidence and substitute its own view for that of the Arbitral Tribunal. The
relevant portion of the judgment is extracted below:
“ 22. Sub-section (1) of Section 34 provides that an application may be
made to the competent court for setting aside an arbitral award. This is the
only remedy available for setting aside an arbitral award. The conditions for
setting aside an arbitral award are mentioned in sub-sections (2) and (2A).
Sub-section (2) provides for situations such as the agreed party was under
some incapacity or the arbitration agreement is not valid under the law or the
aggrieved party did not receive proper notice regarding appointment of
arbitrator or of the arbitral proceedings which prevented it from presenting its
case or the arbitral award deals with a dispute not contemplated by or not
falling within the terms of arbitration or the composition of the arbitral
tribunal or the procedure adopted in arbitration were not in accordance with
the agreement of the parties or the subject matter of dispute is not capable of
settlement by arbitration or the arbitral award is in conflict within the public
policy of India. In terms of sub-section (2A), an arbitral award may also be set
aside on the ground of patent illegality appearing on the face of the award.
Sub-section (3) provides for the time limit for filing of an application for
Page No116/.131
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 04:40:03 pm )

O.S.A.No.108 of 2024 and connected appeals
setting aside arbitral award. Therefore, the grounds on which an arbitral award
can be set aside are clearly mentioned in Sections 34(2) and 34(2A) of the
1996 Act. An arbitral award cannot be set aside on a ground which is beyond
the grounds mentioned in sub-sections (2) and (2A) of Section 34.
23. Scope of Section 34 of the 1996 Act is now well crystallized by a
plethora of judgments of this Court. Section 34 is not in the nature of an
appellate provision. It provides for setting aside an arbitral award that too only
on very limited grounds i.e. as those contained in sub-sections (2) and (2A) of
Section 34. It is the only remedy for setting aside an arbitral award. An arbitral
award is not liable to be interfered with only on the ground that the award is
illegal or is erroneous in law which would require re-appraisal of the evidence
adduced before the arbitral tribunal. If two views are possible, there is no
scope for the court to re-appraise the evidence and to take the view other than
the one taken by the arbitrator. The view taken by the arbitral tribunal is
ordinarily to be accepted and allowed to prevail. Thus, the scope of
interference in arbitral matters is only confined to the extent envisaged under
Section 34 of the Act. The court exercising powers under Section 34 has
perforce to limit its jurisdiction within the four corners of Section 34. It cannot
travel beyond Section 34. Thus, proceedings under Section 34 are summary in
nature and not like a full-fledged civil suit or a civil appeal. The award as such
cannot be touched unless it is contrary to the substantive provisions of law or
Section 34 of the 1996 Act or the terms of the agreement.
24. Therefore, the role of the court under Section 34 of the 1996 Act is
clearly demarcated. It is a restrictive jurisdiction and has to be invoked in a
conservative manner. The reason is that arbitral autonomy must be respected
and judicial interference should remain minimal otherwise it will defeat the
very object of the 1996 Act.”
46. In Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. v. M/s. Sanman
Rice Mills [2024 INSC 742], the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated that the
power under Section 37 is limited to examining whether the Court exercising
jurisdiction under Section 34 acted within the limits prescribed by law. The
appellate Court cannot reconsider the dispute on merits as though it were an
ordinary appeal against the arbitral award. The relevant portion of the judgment
is extracted below:
Page No117/.131
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 04:40:03 pm )

O.S.A.No.108 of 2024 and connected appeals
“POINT OF DETERMINATION:
8. The short question on the submission of the parties, which arises for
our consideration is about the scope of powers of the Appellate Court under
Section 37 of the Act and whether the Appellate Court was justified in setting
aside the award dated 08.11.2012 which had already been confirmed under
Section 34 of the Act.
LEGAL POSITION:
9. The object of the Act is to provide for a speedy and inexpensive
alternative mode of settlement of dispute with the minimum of intervention of
the courts. Section 5 of the Act is implicit in this regard and prohibits
interference by the judicial authority with the arbitration proceedings except
where so provided in Part-I of the Act. The judicial interference, if any, is
provided inter-alia only by means of Sections 34 and 37 of the Act
respectively.
10. Section 34 of the Act provides for getting an arbitral award set
aside by moving an application in accordance with sub- Section (2) and sub-
Section (3) of Section 34 of the Act which inter-alia provide for the grounds
on which an arbitral award is liable to be set aside. One of the main grounds
for interference or setting aside an award is where the arbitral award is in
conflict with the public policy of India i.e. if the award is induced or affected
by fraud or corruption or is in contravention with the fundamental policy of
Indian law or it is in conflict with most basic notions of morality and justice. A
plain reading of Section 34 reveals that the scope of interference by the court
with the arbitral award under Section 34 is very limited and the court is not
supposed to travel beyond the aforesaid scope to find out if the award is good
or bad.
11. Section 37 of the Act provides for a forum of appeal inter-alia
against the order setting aside or refusing to set aside an arbitral award under
Page No118/.131
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 04:40:03 pm )

O.S.A.No.108 of 2024 and connected appeals
Section 34 of the Act. The scope of appeal is naturally akin to and limited to
the grounds enumerated under Section 34 of the Act.
12. It is pertinent to note that an arbitral award is not liable to be
interfered with only on the ground that the award is illegal or is erroneous in
law that too upon reappraisal of the evidence adduced before the arbitral trial.
Even an award which may not be reasonable or is non-speaking to some extent
cannot ordinarily be interfered with by the courts. It is also well settled that
even if two views are possible there is no scope for the court to reappraise the
evidence and to take the different view other than that has been taken by the
arbitrator. The view taken by the arbitrator is normally acceptable and ought to
be allowed to prevail.
13. In paragraph 11 of Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. v. L.K.Ahuja, it has
been observed as under:
"11. There are limitations upon the scope of interference in
awards passed by an arbitrator. When the arbitrator has applied his
mind to the pleadings, the evidence adduced before him and the terms
of the contract, there is no scope for the court to reappraise the matter
as if this were an appeal and even if two views are possible, the view
taken by the arbitrator would prevail. So long as an award made by
an arbitrator can be said to be one by a reasonable person no
interference is called for. However, in cases where an arbitrator
exceeds the terms of the agreement or passes an award in the absence
of any evidence, which is apparent on the face of the award, the same
could be set aside."
14. It is equally well settled that the appellate power under Section 37
of the Act is not akin to the normal appellate jurisdiction vested in the civil
courts for the reason that the scope of interference of the courts with arbitral
proceedings or award is very limited, confined to the ambit of Section 34 of
the Act only and even that power cannot be exercised in a casual and a
cavalier manner.
15. In Dyna Technology Private Limited v. Crompton Greaves Limited,
the court observed as under:
Page No119/.131
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 04:40:03 pm )

O.S.A.No.108 of 2024 and connected appeals
"24. There is no dispute that Section 34 of the Arbitration Act
limits a challenge to an award only on the grounds provided therein
or as interpreted by various courts. We need to be cognizant of the
fact that arbitral awards should not be interfered with in a casual and
cavalier manner, unless the court comes to a conclusion that the
perversity of the award goes to the root of the matter without there
being a possibility of alternative interpretation which may sustain the
arbitral award. Section 34 is different in its approach and cannot be
equated with a normal appellate jurisdiction. The mandate under
Section 34 is to respect the finality of the arbitral award and the party
autonomy to get their dispute adjudicated by an alternative forum as
provided under the law. If the courts were to interfere with the arbitral
award in the usual course on factual aspects, then the commercial
wisdom behind opting for alternate dispute resolution would stand
frustrated.
25. Moreover, umpteen number of judgments of this Court
have categorically held that the courts should not interfere with an
award merely because an alternative view on facts and interpretation
of contract exists. The courts need to be cautious and should defer to
the view taken by the Arbitral Tribunal even if the reasoning provided
in the award is implied unless such award portrays perversity
unpardonable under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act."
16. It is seen that the scope of interference in an appeal under Section
37 of the Act is restricted and subject to the same grounds on which an award
can be challenged under Section 34 of the Act. In other words, the powers
under Section 37 vested in the court of appeal are not beyond the scope of
interference provided under Section 34 of the Act.
17. In paragraph 14 of MMTC Limited v. Vedanta Limited, it has been
held as under:
"14. As far as interference with an order made under Section 34, as per
Section 37, is concerned, it cannot be disputed that such interference under
Section 37 cannot travel beyond the restrictions laid down under Section 34.
In other words, the court cannot undertake an independent assessment of the
merits of the award, and must only ascertain that the exercise of power by the
court under Section 34 has not exceeded the scope of the provision. Thus, it is
evident that in case an arbitral award has been confirmed by the court under
Section 34 and by the court in an appeal under Section 37, this Court must be
extremely cautious and slow to disturb such concurrent findings."
Page No120/.131
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 04:40:03 pm )

O.S.A.No.108 of 2024 and connected appeals
18. Recently a three-Judge Bench in Konkan Railway Corporation
Limited v. Chenab Bridge Project Undertaking referring to MMTC Limited
(supra) held that the scope of jurisdiction under Section 34 and Section 37 of
the Act is not like a normal appellate jurisdiction and the courts should not
interfere with the arbitral award lightly in a casual and a cavalier manner. The
mere possibility of an alternative view on facts or interpretation of the contract
does not entitle the courts to reverse the findings of the arbitral tribunal.
19. In Bombay Slum Redevelopment Corporation Private Limited v.
Samir Narain Bhojwani, a Division Bench of this Court followed and
reiterated the principle laid down in the case of MMTC Limited (supra) and
UHL Power Company Limited v. State of Himachal Pradesh . It quoted and
highlighted paragraph 16 of the latter judgment which extensively relies upon
MMTC Limited (supra). It reads as under:
"16. As it is, the jurisdiction conferred on courts under Section
34 of the Arbitration Act is fairly narrow, when it comes to the scope
of an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act, the jurisdiction
of an appellate court in examining an order, setting aside or refusing
to set aside an award, is all the more circumscribed. In MMTC Ltd. v.
Vedanta Ltd. [MMTC Ltd. v. Vedanta Ltd., (2019) 4 SCC 163: (2019)
2 SCC (Civ) 293], the reasons for vesting such a limited jurisdiction
on the High Court in exercise of powers under Section 34 of the
Arbitration Act have been explained in the following words: (SCC
pp. 166- 67, para 11)
"11. As far as Section 34 is concerned, the position is well-
settled by now that the Court does not sit in appeal over the
arbitral award and may interfere on merits on the limited
ground provided under Section 34(2)(b)(ii) i.e. if the award is
against the public policy of India. As per the legal position
clarified through decisions of this Court prior to the
amendments to the 1996 Act in 2015, a violation of Indian
public policy, in turn, includes a violation of the fundamental
policy of Indian law, a violation of the interest of India, conflict
with justice or morality, and the existence of patent illegality in
the arbitral award. Additionally, the concept of the
"fundamental policy of Indian law" would cover compliance
with statutes and judicial precedents, adopting a judicial
approach, compliance with the principles of natural justice, and
Wednesbury [Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v.
Page No121/.131
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 04:40:03 pm )

O.S.A.No.108 of 2024 and connected appeals
Wednesbury Corpn., [1948] 1 Κ.Β. 223 (CA)] reasonableness.
Furthermore, "patent illegality" itself has been held to mean
contravention of the substantive law of India, contravention of
the 1996 Act, and contravention of the terms of the contract.""
CONCLUSION:
20. In view of the above position in law on the subject, the scope of the
intervention of the court in arbitral matters is virtually prohibited, if not
absolutely barred and that the interference is confined only to the extent
envisaged under Section 34 of the Act. The appellate power of Section 37 of
the Act is limited within the domain of Section 34 of the Act. It is exercisable
only to find out if the court, exercising power under Section 34 of the Act, has
acted within its limits as prescribed thereunder or has exceeded or failed to
exercise the power so conferred. The Appellate Court has no authority of law
to consider the matter in dispute before the arbitral tribunal on merits so as to
find out as to whether the decision of the arbitral tribunal is right or wrong
upon reappraisal of evidence as if it is sitting in an ordinary court of appeal. It
is only where the court exercising power under Section 34 has failed to
exercise its jurisdiction vested in it by Section 34 or has travelled beyond its
jurisdiction that the appellate court can step in and set aside the order passed
under Section 34 of the Act. Its power is more akin to that superintendence as
is vested in civil courts while exercising revisionary powers. The arbitral
award is not liable to be interfered unless a case for interference as set out in
the earlier part of the decision, is made out. It cannot be disturbed only for the
reason that instead of the view taken by the arbitral tribunal, the other view
which is also a possible view is a better view according to the appellate court.
21. It must also be remembered that proceedings under Section 34 of
the Act are summary in nature and are not like a full-fledged regular civil suit.
Therefore, the scope of Section 37 of the Act is much more summary in nature
and not like an ordinary civil appeal. The award as such cannot be touched
unless it is contrary to the substantive provision of law; any provision of the
Act or the terms of the agreement.
Page No122/.131
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 04:40:03 pm )

O.S.A.No.108 of 2024 and connected appeals
22. In the case at hand, the arbitral award dated 08.11.2012 is based
upon evidence and is reasonable. It has not been found to be against public
policy of India or the fundamental policy of Indian law or in conflict with the
most basic notions of morality and justice. It is not held to be against any
substantive provision of law or the Act. Therefore, the award was rightly
upheld by the court exercising the powers under Section 34 of the Act. The
Appellate Court, as such, could not have set aside the award without recording
any finding that the award suffers from any illegality as contained in Section
34 of the Act or that the court had committed error in upholding the same.
Merely for the reason that the view of the Appellate Court is a better view than
the one taken by the arbitral tribunal, is no ground to set aside the award.
23. Thus, in our opinion, the Appellate Court committed manifest error
of law in setting aside the order passed under Section 34 of the Act and
consequently the arbitral award dated 08.11.2012.
24. Accordingly, the impugned judgment and order dated 10.01.2017
passed under Section 37 is hereby set aside and the arbitral award dated
08.11.2012 is restored to be implemented in accordance with law.
25. The appeal is allowed with no order as to costs.
26. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.”
Therefore, this Court must examine whether the reasons given by the learned
Single Judge fall within the grounds for setting aside an award under Section
34.
47. The learned Single Judge set aside the consequential directions in the
Second Interim Award on the ground that the Tribunal had not followed a proper
procedure for inviting claims from creditors and other persons. Clause 4 of the
Page No123/.131
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 04:40:03 pm )

O.S.A.No.108 of 2024 and connected appeals
Parntership deed provides that the partinership was a partnership at “Will”.
Section 48 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, prescribes the order in which the
liabilities and assets of a dissolved firm must be settled. In the present case,
notice of dissolution was published in the Official Gazette on 21.03.2012 and in
the Dinamani newspaper on 13.03.2012. No third party came forward claiming
any interest in the Firm or its assets, and no third-party claim was filed before
the Tribunal. These facts are relevant while considering the objection raised by
the learned Single Judge. In the absence of any third-party claim, the
consequential directions could not be set aside merely on the assumption that
third-party interests might be affected. Further, it is pertinent to note that
initially, only a civil suit had been filed, and it was subsequently that a memo
dated 18.01.2007 came to be filed, pursuant to which the matter was referred to
arbitration. This material sequence of events cannot be lost sight of. The
question must be whether the directions actually made by the Tribunal disclose
a ground for interference under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation
Act, 1996.
48. The learned Single Judge also questioned the valuation of the Firm
and the alleged failure to value its goodwill, trademark and brand name. The
Tribunal had to determine the rights and entitlements of the partners following
Page No124/.131
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 04:40:03 pm )

O.S.A.No.108 of 2024 and connected appeals
dissolution. In examining its decision, the Court must bear in mind that
proceedings under Section 34 are not an appeal on the merits of the dispute.
This Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 37, cannot reassess the
valuation evidence or substitute its own view merely because another approach
is possible. Unless the valuation findings disclose a legally recognised ground
for setting aside the award, interference is not warranted.
49. In an appeal under Section 37, this Court must examine whether the
learned Single Judge exercised the power under Section 34 within the limits
prescribed by law. It cannot reconsider the entire dispute as if it were an
ordinary civil appeal. Having regard to the publication of the dissolution
notices, the absence of third-party claims before the Tribunal and the limited
scope of judicial interference, the consequential directions in the Second Interim
Award and the Third Interim Award cannot be set aside merely on the grounds
stated by the learned Single Judge. Interference is justified only where a ground
recognised under Section 34 is established.
50. For the foregoing reasons, we hold that the learned Single Judge was
not justified in setting aside the consequential directions in the Second Interim
Award and the entire Third Interim Award without establishing a legally
Page No125/.131
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 04:40:03 pm )

O.S.A.No.108 of 2024 and connected appeals
sustainable ground for interference under Section 34 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996. Point No.2 is accordingly answered in favour of the
appellants.
51. We shall next consider the submissions of Mrs.Chitra Sampath,
learned Senior Counsel, relating to the accounts, audit and valuation of the
Firm. She submitted that the accounts of the Firm were disputed, that complete
books and records had not been made available, and that the applications
relating to rendition of accounts and audit were pending. According to her, a
proper audit and valuation ought to have been completed before the assets were
distributed. She further submitted that the editions should not have been valued
and distributed separately, and that the assets and business of the Firm ought to
have been considered as a whole. She contended that the assets should have
been sold as a single unit and the sale proceeds distributed among the partners
according to their respective shares, after discharging the debts and liabilities of
the Firm. She also sought a forensic audit and proper valuation.
52. We have considered the submissions made by Mrs.Chitra Sampath
regarding the accounts, non-availability of complete books and records, the
need for further audit and valuation, and the distribution of the Firm’s assets. A
Page No126/.131
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 04:40:03 pm )

O.S.A.No.108 of 2024 and connected appeals
perusal of the Awards shows that the Arbitral Tribunal examined the accounts
and valuation materials with the assistance of a Chartered Accountant and
considered the claims and objections raised by the parties. The Tribunal
thereafter recorded its findings and issued directions regarding the distribution
of the editions and the settlement of the partners’ rights.
53. Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, does not
permit the Court to sit in appeal over an arbitral award or to re-examine the
evidence merely because a different view is possible. The Court can interfere
only if a ground specified under Section 34 is established. A party’s
disagreement with the findings on accounts, valuation or distribution is not, by
itself, sufficient to set aside an Award.
54. This Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 37 of the Act,
has to examine whether the learned Single Judge was justified in setting aside
the second and third interim awards under Section 34. This Court cannot re-
examine the accounts or substitute its own view for that of the Arbitral Tribunal.
Page No127/.131
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 04:40:03 pm )

O.S.A.No.108 of 2024 and connected appeals
55. The objections raised by Mrs.Chitra Sampath regarding further audit,
valuation and the allotment of the editions must be considered in the light of the
findings recorded by the Tribunal and the grounds for interference under
Section 34 of the Act. The requests for a further audit, a different valuation or
the sale of the entire business as one unit do not, by themselves, establish any
ground for setting aside the Awards.
56. However, we accept the submissions of the learned Senior Counsel
for the appellants regarding the Tribunal’s authority to continue the proceedings
and decide the consequences of the dissolution of the Firm, as discussed under
Point No.1. We find no merit in the other submissions made by Mrs.Chitra
Sampath regarding the accounts, audit, valuation and distribution of the Firm’s
assets, and no ground to grant the further relief sought by her. The learned
Single Judge was therefore not justified in setting aside the consequential
directions in the Second Interim Award and the Third Interim Award on the
grounds discussed above.
Page No128/.131
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 04:40:03 pm )

O.S.A.No.108 of 2024 and connected appeals
57. In the result, O.S.A.Nos.154 to 160 of 2025 are disposed of, and
O.S.A.Nos.108, 109, 113, 114, 121, 135, 138, 140, 142 and 144 of 2024 are
allowed. The common order dated 10.08.2023 is set aside insofar as it interferes
with the Second Interim Award dated 15.03.2014 and sets aside the Third
Interim Award dated 29.09.2018 in its entirety. The Second Interim Award dated
15.03.2014 and the Third Interim Award dated 29.09.2018 passed by the
Arbitral Tribunal are restored. The First Interim Award dated 28.11.2013
remains undisturbed. There shall be no order as to costs.
[P.VELMURUGAN. J.,] [G.K.MUTHUKUMAAR. J.,]
28 / 10 / 2026
Index:Yes
Speaking order
Internet:Yes
Neutral Citation:Yes
r n s
Page No129/.131
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 04:40:03 pm )

O.S.A.No.108 of 2024 and connected appeals
To
The Sub Assistant Registrar (O.S.)
High Court, Madras
Page No130/.131
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 04:40:03 pm )

O.S.A.No.108 of 2024 and connected appeals
P.VELMURUGAN. J.,
AND
GK.MUTHUKUMAAR. J.,
Judgment in
O.S.A.Nos. 108, 109, 113, 114, 121, 135,
138, 140, 142, 144 of 2024
and
O.S.A.Nos.154, 155, 156, 157, 158,
159 & 160 of 2025
28 / 10 / 2026
Page No131/.131
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 04:40:03 pm )