The applicants brought an application under the Arbitration Act, 1991 to declare that an arbitrator lacked jurisdiction to hear claims brought by the respondent in a family business dispute.
The dispute centered on whether the respondent, who was a shareholder of a corporate partner but not a 'partner' or 'principal' under the partnership agreement, was a 'party' entitled to invoke the arbitration clause.
Applying the principles of contractual interpretation from Sattva, the court found that the plain wording of the agreement, including the recitals and enurement clause, contemplated that shareholders of the partners were parties.
The court concluded that the arbitrator had jurisdiction over the respondent's claims for dissolution and increased compensation, as well as the applicants' claims regarding management compensation.
