Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Tilak





                                    7/25                    ARBPL 15428-23.doc

The petitioner tendered a formal letter of resignation on 29/11/2021, inter alia, stating that he shall resign from 30/11/2021 i.e. by giving one day notice.

9 According to Ms.Gulnar Mistry, the counsel for the respondent state that the resignation notice by the petitioner is not compliant with the requirement of Section 24 of the Limited Liability Partnership Act, 2008, (for short 'LLP Act') which contemplate 30 days notice period and the argument of Ms.Mistry hinges on this aspect to a large extent, whereas, according to Mr.Daver, this objection is raised as an after-thought, as the reply of the respondent dated 10/12/2021 to the resignation notice do not raise any such objection and in fact, by his email addressed to third parties on 6/1/2021, an intimation is already circulated that the petitioner was no longer the partner in the LLP, which according to Mr.Daver, amounts to an admission of 'acceptance of his resignation'.

The Tribunal stressed upon the objection of the claimant that the respondent's resignation from LLP is contrary to Section 24 of the LLP Act and though the learned Arbitrator record that the LLP Agreement is silent on the aspect of resignation of a Partner, he record that the second part of Section 24 of the LLP is attracted, wherein the partner intending to resign, must give a notice of not less than 30 days to other partner, indicating his intention to resign as a partner of LLP, and by referring to the letter issued by Aakarshan, by which he purportedly resigned as partner from LLP, the Arbitrator concluded that it is patently contrary to Section 24 of the LLP Act, as it failed to adhere to the mandate of the provisions.

As far as the finding rendered by the Arbitrator about the resignation notice not being complied with Section 24 of the LLP Act, it is his submission that there can be no injunction granted if the notice is found to be faulty as there can be no declaration that he shall continue to remain in the LLP despite his resignation because the notice was not compliant with the statutory provision, but what remedy is available, is a claim in damages.

Mr.Daver has also invited my attention to sub-section (6) of Section 25 of the LLP Act and Section 36(1) and (2) of the Partnership Act and he has attempted to bring forth the contradictions in the statute.

Tilak 25/25 ARBPL 15428-23.doc 24 What the learned Arbitrator has ultimately done is, he has enforced the negative covenant beyond the prescribed timelines only by recording a finding that since there was no compliance of Section 24 of the LLP Act, when the petitioner tendered his resignation letter dated 29/11/2021 and sought to resign at a day's notice, the learned Arbitrator has extended the negative covenant beyond the period of two years, which in my considered opinion, is impermissible for him. The contract is between the parties and it is not permissible either for the Arbitrator or to any Court to re-write the contract. If the consequence of non- compliance of Section 24 of the LLP Act do not result in its restoration, the negative covenant cannot be enforced indefinitely by stretching it beyond the period of two years as specified in clause no.29 of the LLP Agreement.