AWARD

This is a majority Award being the decision of the chairperson and the co-arbitrators arrived at
unanimously. After considering the pleadings, the testimony and evidence presented at the
hearing, the Tribunal has decided in full and final resolution of the issues submitted for
determination as follows:

1. Rejects the Respondent’s objections to the entitlement of Equal Share to the Claimant in
the Total Profit;
2. Decides that Claimant is entitled to 50% Of the total net profit Acquired;
3. Dismisses the Respondent’s claim on the merits;
4. Decides that the Parties are jointly and severally liable to pay the costs of the Arbitration,
namely the costs of the Arbitral Tribunal;
5. The Fees of Arbitrators Ms. Lavanya, Ms.Gayani. G and Mr.George Thomas.L is as per
the Fourth Schedule of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. These amounts are to be
borne by the Respondent as per the general rule laid Pursuant to Section 31(2) of
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, a party may bring an action against the award regarding
the decision on the fees of the arbitrators within three months from the date when the
party received the award or request made u/s 33 is deposed off. This action should be
brought before the City Civil Court, Bangalore.

ARBITRATORS’ SIGNATURES

______________sign_____________

Arbitrator George Thomas L

Mutual Arbitrator

______sign_________ _______sign__________

Arbitrator Gayani G Arbitrator Lavanya S

Dated________________ Location________________
 JUDGMENT

The Arbitration Tribunal has reached the final award because of the reasons set below:

1) Whether the claim statement is maintainable?

The Respondents have made their contention that the claimant being the sole proprietary
concern, the claim statement had to be filed in the name of the proprietor and the proprietorship
concern being not a legal entity cannot sue in its own name. The sole proprietorship concern
unlike a partnership firm or a registered company is not a legal entity. Order XXX Rule 10 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) allows a sole proprietorship firm to be sued in its name.
But can a sole proprietorship firm cannot sue by its name. To prove their statement the
respondents have referred the following cases:

In case of Municipal Council, Tiroda vs. K. Ravindran and Co. & Ors. [2003 (6) Bom.C.R.
287]  wherein the original defendant no. 3 i.e. the revision applicant had made an application for
dismissal of suit before the trial court on the ground that the proprietor cannot file a suit in the
trade name of the proprietary firm. The trial court rejected the application for dismissal of the
suit. The order of rejection was challenged. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court partly allowed the
revision and directed original plaintiff to do rectification in the name of plaintiff.  In case
of Svapn Constructions vs. IDPL Employees Co-Operative Group Housing Society Ltd. & Ors.
[2005 SCC OnLine Del 1392], the petitioner had sued the respondent in proprietorship name.
The Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that a petition in the name of a sole proprietorship firm
which is not a legal entity is not maintainable and dismissed the petition. Thus, according to the
Respondents a sole proprietor not being a legal entity cannot sue in the name of his/her
proprietorship firm. 
But, the present claim statement is filed in the name of the Proprietor “Mr. K.P. Anirudh” who is
the Proprietor of Sun Power Solutions. Therefore, the case is between Mr. K.P. Anirudh,
Proprietor, Sun Power Solutions and Infrastructure and Engineering Services Pvt. Ltd. and not
between Sun Power Solutions and Infrastructure and Engineering Services Pvt. Ltd.
For the above stated reason, the claim statement is clearly maintainable.