Arbitration clause in family settlement covered partition and related assets, so the dispute was referred to arbitration.

An arbitration clause dated 31 January 2004, read with the 1989 family settlement, was treated as wide enough to cover implementation of the settlement and all connected or incidental matters arising from it. The partition suit, which concerned adjustment of family business and assets among the four branches, was found to fall within that bargain even though some assets and entities were not expressly listed and some parties were not signatories. The presence of later-created companies and additional parties did not prevent reference where the core dispute remained referable to the family arrangement. The disputes were therefore directed to arbitration under Section 8.

---

---

Issues: Whether the disputes in the partition suit were covered by the arbitration agreement so as to require reference under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 despite objections that the agreement was limited to implementation of the earlier family arrangement and that some assets and parties were not expressly covered.

Analysis: The arbitration agreement of 31 January 2004 was read with the 1989 family settlement and its language was treated as wide enough to cover not only implementation of the settlement but also all connected and incidental matters arising out of or in relation to it. The suit was found to be essentially for partition and adjustment of the family business and assets among the four branches, including assets and concerns not expressly listed in the earlier arrangement but said to have been acquired from the family corpus. The objection based on non-signatory companies and later-created entities was rejected on the footing that the family companies were intended to be treated as part of the family arrangement, and that the presence of additional parties did not defeat reference where the core dispute remained within the arbitration bargain. The principle against splitting causes or parties did not assist the plaintiffs because the real dispute was held to be referable and capable of equitable adjustment within arbitration.

Conclusion: The disputes were held to fall within the arbitration agreement and the suit was directed to be referred to arbitration under Section 8.

---