Bombay High Court
Shri Anil Rathi S/O Late Shri O.L. ... vs M/S. Pyramid Realtors, Nagpur And ... on 25 November, 2022
Bench: V. G. Joshi
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 189/2022
Shri Anil Rathi, S/o. Late Shri O.L.Rathi,
aged about 50 years, R/o. 201,
Park Regency, Opp. Tilak Vidyalaya,
Dhantoli, Nagpur - 440012.
... APPLICANT
VERSUS
1. M/s. Pyramid Realtors,
5 Software Technology Park
(STP) Link Road, Sadar, Nagpur.
2. Shri Prashant S/o Babasaheb
Wasade, Partner, Pyramid
Realtors, R/o G-2 Himalaya
Paradise, GPO Square, Civil
Lines, Nagpur.
3. Shri Naved Ali S/o Sajid Ali,
(Partner, Pyramid Realtors),
R/o. 448, Darus Sukoon, New
Colony, Nagpur.
4. Shri Gaurav S/o Rajinder Kumar
Jain, Partner, Pyramid Realtors,
R/o. B-3/1202, World Spa
(West) Sector 30 Gurgaon.
5. Shri Sanjay S/o Babasaheb
Wasade, Partner, Pyramid
Realtors, R/o. Civil Lines,
Chandrapur.
2
6. Shri Vishwas S/o Sudhakar
Chaknalwar, R/o. Flat No. 801,
Royal Park, Plot No. 72, near
Dagdi Park, Ramdaspheth,
Nagpur.
Alternate address of non-
applicant Nos. 2 to 6 office at 5
Software Technology Park (STP)
Link Road, Sadar Nagpur.
...NON-APPLICANTS
_____________________________________________________________
Mr. C. S. Dhore, Advocate for applicant.
Mr. R.L. Khapre, Senior Advocate with Mr. M.R. Joharapurkar,
Advocate for non-applicant Nos. 1 o 5.
______________________________________________________________
CORAM : VINAY JOSHI, J.
RESERVING THE JUDGMENT ON : 19/09/2022
PRONOUNCING THE JUDGMENT ON : 25/11/2022.
JUDGMENT :
This is an application seeking the appointment of Arbitrator
in terms of Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act, 1996 ('Act'). The
appointment of Arbitrator has been claimed on the basis of Clause No.
13 incorporated in the partnership deed dated 01.04.2019 executed in
between the parties.
2. The applicant and non-applicants are partners of the firm.
The partnership firm has been formed for carrying the business of
promoters and developers of real estate under the name and style of
M/s. Pyramid Realtors. The partnership business commenced in the
year 2007 and time to time it was reconstituted by varying the terms.
The first partnership deed was executed on 23.09.2007. The firm was
registered on 27.09.2008 having registration No. NGP-10678/2008-
2009. The partnership deeds were executed in Nagpur as well as office
of the firm is in the Nagpur City.
3. It is applicant's case that initially applicant along with M/s.
Tarangan Developers Pvt. Ltd, M/s. Jagadamba Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd
and non-applicant Nos. 2, 3 and 6 were partners. The applicant was
holding 1/4th share in the partnership firm. The said share holding
was continued till July 2011. However, in the month of July 2011 M/s.
Tarangan Developers Pvt. Ltd, M/s. Jagadamba Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd
retired from the firm on which non-applicant Nos. 4 and 5 were
inducted as new partners. Accordingly, on 16.07.2011, partnership
firm was reconstituted by executing a deed. While reconstituting the
partnership firm, applicant's share was reduced to 22.75% from
24.60%. Later on, the partnership deed was amended in the year 2016
by execution of fresh partnership deed again reducing applicant's share
to the extent of 22%.
4. It is applicant's case that since rest of the partners were in
majority, though the applicant raised grievance it was sidelined. It is
the principal grievance that the non-applicants have raised various loan
from banks and finance institutions by mortgaging firm's property. The
said loan was raised for the personal business of respective partners
jeopardizing development of partnership business. It resulted into
severely affecting the partnership business. Since the loan was not
timely repaid, the bank has classified it as non performing assets (NPA)
which has also affected the firms business. It is contended that non-
applicant No. 2 i.e. one of the partner of firm had provided partnership
property for economically weaker sections construction despite
resistance of applicant.
5. The applicant was always kept away from the partnership
business affairs. The applicant noted that the non-applicants were not
acting to further the interest of partnership firm. On repeated
grievance, the partners have mutually agreed to workout amicable
settlement and distribute the assets. With such object, partnership
deed was once again amended/reconstituted on 01.04.2019 under
which certain land of firm came to be reserved for different partners
including the applicant. In furtherance of reservation of land in favour
of the applicant, a power of attorney dated 13.07.2020 was executed
by rest of the partners in favour of applicant. The said power of
attorney was in lieu of settlement inter se arrived by the partners
towards the applicant's share.
6. It is applicant's case that he was entitled to receive sum of
more than Rs. 35 crores, however the other partners by denying
genuine claim, admitted to pay Rs. 10 crores only. Since the applicant
was authorized to sell some of the property, he started to negotiate with
the customers on which realized that most of the property was under
litigation. According to the applicant, the said fact was within the
knowledge of non-applicants, however in order to deceive the
applicant, said arrangement was made. On applicant's grievance, the
non-applicants assured to pay sum of Rs. 15 crores within stipulated
period. Upon such assurance, the applicant has executed another
power of attorney dated 21.06.2021 in respect of firm's land including
the land which was already reserved for him. The said power of
attorney was executed in favour of non-applicant No. 3 to further the
settlement of applicant.
7. It is applicant's contention that despite authorizing non-
applicant No. 3 by way of power of attorney dated 21.06.2021, the
applicant's dues were not paid. The property which was reserved for
applicant and authorized under power of attorney dated 13.07.2020,
was not cleared despite assurance. It is alleged that the non-applicants
have continued illegal activities. On the other hand, they borrowed
huge sum from Kanyaka Nagari Sahakari Bank Branch Sita Buldi,
Naghpur on the strength of power of attorney dated 21.06.2021. The
firm's property has been illegally mortgaged and the applicant has been
treated as a co-borrower for said loan. The applicant tried to settle,
however the non-applicants have multiplied the differences by entering
into illegal activities. The dispute pertains to accounts, profit of
business and rights and liabilities relating to firm.
8. Since the non-applicants have not settled the huge
monetary dues of applicant to the tune of Rs. 35 crores, the applicant
has invoked Arbitration Clause No. 13 vide notice dated 24.02.2022.
By issuing said notice, the applicant suggested two names of Arbitrators
and asked for concurrence. It is applicant's contention that the claim to
be referred to the Arbitrator arose out of and in relation to the
partnership deed mutually executed on 01.04.2019. The deed bears a
dispute resolution method by way of Arbitration vide Clause No. 13 of
the document. The applicant would submit that in response to the
invocation of the Arbitration Clause, the non-applicants vide notice
reply dated 03.03.2022 sought to negotiate the issue by seeking certain
documents. The non-applicant No. 3 vide notice reply dated
24.02.2022 has not agreed with the names of Arbitrator proposed by
the applicant. One another notice was issued by the applicant,
however the non-applicants did not agree for the Arbitrator. It is the
applicant's case that despite vast differences, the non-applicants were
dealing with the properties of the firm in derogation to the interest of
the applicant. The applicant has applied under Section 9 of the Act for
interim reliefs. In said proceeding, the applicant came to know about
one more partnership deed dated 30.06.2021, which according to him
was never executed. It is applicant's contention that entire dispute
arose out of the partnership business. The parties have mutually
chosen mode of settlement of all disputes relating to partnership
business by way of appointment of arbitrator. It is contended that
Arbitration Clause exists in the document as well as their exists arbitral
dispute. Since the non-applicants have refused to agree for
appointment of arbitrator, the applicant urged for his appointment.
9. Application is resisted by non-applicants vide joint reply
dated 29.06.2022. Non-applicants have not denied commencement of
partnership business in the year 2007 and execution of multiple revised
partnership deeds in between the parties. The non-applicants have not
denied the execution of partnership deed dated 01.04.20199 bearing
Arbitration Clause. It is not denied that the applicant was one of the
partner of firm which was revised time to time. Besides that the non-
applicants have denied all other allegations levelled against them.
10. It is contended that there is no foundation for claiming
huge sum of Rs. 35 crores. The applicant has not produced documents
to substantiate his grievance. It is stated that in absence of agreement
to pay the sum to the applicant, matter cannot be referred for
arbitration. It is also stated that the Court has no jurisdiction to
appoint an Arbitrator as there is no agreement of arbitration in respect
of claim raised by the applicant. According to the non-applicants,
though Arbitration Clause exist in the agreement, the same do not
contain a clause or averment that the applicant is entitled to raise claim
about the amount stated. According to the non-applicants the
agreement is not within the meaning of Section 7 of the Act, therefore
application is not tenable.
11. Non-applicants have mainly resisted the application on the
ground of suppression of material facts by the applicant. It is stated
that the parties have reconstructed partnership on 13.08.2018 and
30.06.2021 which has been suppressed. The power of attorney
executed in favour of applicant was also cancelled which is not brought
on record. More particularly, it is contended that as per reconstructed
partnership deed, the applicant has sold most of the properties assigned
to him and thus, he is not coming with clean hands. Particularly, it is
contended that there is no disclosure of execution of reconstructed
partnership deeds.
12. The non-applicants stated that the applicant has accepted
the reconstructed partnership deed dated 30.06.2021. He has given
exclusive rights to non-applicants to deal with the firm's property as
well as authorized to raise the funds. It is stated that the applicant has
signed authority letters while raising loan. In relation to said
contention, certain clauses of partnership deeds have been cited. The
non-applicants would state that, under reconstructed deed dated
13.08.2018, the applicant admitted the settlement. Non-applicants
have pointed certain terms of partnership deed dated 01.04.2019
authorizing them to operate bank account and borrowing power.
Moreover, it is contended that those things have been accepted by the
applicant while reconstructing partnership deed dated 03.06.2021.
13. While summarizing the resistance, it is stated that the
applicant's claim for sum of Rs. 35 crores is fictitious and not supported
by documents. The applicant was well aware that he is nominal
partner in the firm with only 0.1% share in the profit and loss. Though
he is nominal partner, he is trying to extort money. According to non-
applicants, this application is filed with ulterior motive with sole object
of pressurizing rest partners, therefore urged for rejection.
14. Both have produced voluminous documents in support of
their respective contentions. Partnership deed dated 01.04.2019 on the
basis of which Arbitration Clause has been invoked is tendered on
record. The applicant has been shown as partner No. 5 whilst rest are
remaining partners of the firm. It bears a reference that the partnership
business commenced on 23.09.2007 and revised time to time. The
applicant's share is shown as 0.1% in the partnership deed whilst the
remuneration payable to the applicant shall be 70%. The partnership
deed specifies the rights and liabilities of the partners. Clause No. 12-C
specifies that the applicant has been authorized to sell the property
described in Scheduled 1 and Scheduled 2 of the deed. The applicant
also undertook to clear the dues of competent authority and taxes.
Particularly, Clause No. 13 of the deed specifies the dispute resolution
mechanism by way of appointment of Arbitrator. The said Clause runs
as below:-
"Clause No. 13. Reference to Arbitration:
That if any dispute or difference which may arise between
the parties or their representatives with regard to the
preparation of accounts, profits or losses of business, the
rights and liabilities of the business or any other matter
relating to the firm shall be referred to the arbitration of one
or more arbitrators (to be appointed by the mutual consent
of all the partners) whose decision shall be final and binding
on all the partners and their representatives."
15. On the basis of above clause, the applicant has urged for
appointment of Arbitrator for resolution of dispute. Initial, partnership
deed dated 23.09.2007 has been produced to show that the applicant
was a second partner since inception having 12.50% share in the
business. The said deed also bears Clause No. 12 pertaining to the
appointment of Arbitrator. One another revised partnership deed
dated 16.07.2011 is produced on record, equally bearing the similar
mechanism for resolution of dispute. The same is the case of further
partnership deed dated 12.01.2016. In each partnership document,
there happens to be Arbitration Clause for which there can be no
dispute. On the other hand, the non-applicants have produced
partnership deeds dated 13.08.2018 and 30.06.2021 which were
allegedly suppressed, rather denied. The last partnership deed dated
30.06.2021, equally shows that the applicant is a partner No. 5 having
share 0.1%. This partnership deed tendered by non-applicants also
bears an Arbitration Clause No. 14 similar to Clause No. 13 of the
partnership deed dated 01.04.2019.
16. In support of his contention, the applicant has produced a
general power of attorney dated 13.07.2020 authorizing him to sell
scheduled property. He has also produced a general power of attorney
dated 21.06.2021 which according to him was got executed by
deceitful means in favour of partner Naved Sajid Ali. Besides that the
applicant has produced the loan sanction documents.
17. It is submitted on behalf of non-applicants that as per
partnership deed, the applicant's share was only 0.1% which itself
shows that he was nominal partner. Only to facilitate the applicant to
sell the scheduled property, 0.1% share was assigned to him.
According to non-applicants, since share of the applicant was
minuscule, the claim of huge amount of Rs. 35 crores is wholly
untenable. The non-applicants have produced a document to show
that the applicant has authorized other partners to raise loan. It is
submitted that the applicant is one way challenging the loan
transaction as well as mortgage created in favour of financier bank. He
would submit that without bank being a party and as a mortgagee's
rights are in rem, the matter cannot be referred to the Arbitrator. The
learned counsel appearing for the non-applicants has referred certain
sale-deeds to impress that the applicant has already sold certain
properties and thus he is not coming with clean hands.
18. By relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in case of
Booz Allen and Hamilton Inc. Vs. SBI Home Finance Ltd. and ors, AIR
2011 SC 2507, the non-applicants submitted that enforcement of
mortgage is a right in rem therefore, a dispute shall be decided by the
Civil Court and not by Arbitral Tribunal. Undoubtedly, a mortgage is a
transfer of right in rem. A mortgage suit for sale of the mortgaged
property is an action in rem, meaning thereby the enforcement is in
rem. Pertinent to note that the applicant has not challenged the
mortgage transaction, but it is his bid to show that the non-applicants
who are partners of firm have acted against the interest of firm. The
reference is primly sought for settlement of partnership inter se
dispute, therefore the said submission would not come to the aid of
non-applicants.
19. Both sides have relied on the decision of the Supreme
Court in case of Vidya Drolia and others Vs. Durga Trading
Corporation with other connected matters, (2021) 2 SCC 1 to
substantiate their respective contentions. As regards to the scope of
judicial intervention relating to application under Section 11 of the
Act, three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court has eloquently clarified
the position. The relevant observations made therein reads as below:-
"154.2. Scope of judicial review and jurisdiction of the
court under Section 8 and 11 of the Arbitration Act is
identical but extremely limited and restricted.
154.3. The general rule and principle, in view of the
legislative mandate clear from Act 3 of 2016 and Act 33
of 2019, and the principle of severability and
competence-competence, is that the arbitral tribunal is
the preferred first authority to determine and decide all
questions of non-arbitrability. The court has been
conferred power of "second look" on aspects of non-
arbitrability post the award in terms of sub-clauses (i),
(ii) or (iv) of Section 34(2)(a) or sub-clause (i) of
Section 34(2)(b) of the Arbitration Act.
154.4. Rarely as a demurrer the court may interfere at
Section 8 or 11 stage when it is manifestly and ex facie
certain that the arbitration agreement is non- existent, invalid
or the disputes are non-arbitrable, though the nature and
facet of non- arbitrability would, to some extent, determine
the level and nature of
judicial scrutiny. The restricted and limited review is to
check and protect parties from being forced to arbitrate
when the matter is demonstrably 'non-arbitrable' and to
cut off the deadwood. The court by default would refer
the matter when contentions relating to non-arbitrability
are plainly arguable; when consideration in summary
proceedings would be insufficient and inconclusive;
when facts are contested; when the party opposing
arbitration adopts delaying tactics or impairs conduct of
arbitration proceedings. This is not the stage for the
court to enter into a mini trial or elaborate review so as
to usurp the jurisdiction of the Arbitral Tribunal but to
affirm and uphold integrity and efficacy of arbitration as
an alternative dispute resolution mechanism.
244.1 Sections 8 and 11 of the Act have the same ambit with
respect to judicial interference.
244.2 Usually, subject matter arbitrability cannot be decided
at the stage of Sections 8 or 11 of the Act, unless it's a clear
case of deadwood.
244.3 The Court, under Sections 8 and 11, has to refer a
matter to arbitration or to appoint an arbitrator, as the case
may be, unless a party has established a prima facie
(summary findings) case of non-existence of valid arbitration
agreement, by summarily portraying a strong
case that he is entitled to such a finding.
244.4 The Court should refer a matter if the validity of the
arbitration agreement cannot be determined on a prima
facie basis, as laid down above, i.e., 'when in doubt, do
refer'.
244.5 The scope of the Court to examine the prima facie
validity of an arbitration agreement includes on only."
20. The said decision is pressed into service by both sides on
the point of scope of application under Section 11(6) of the Act. In
the said decision, the Supreme Court has considered the different
situations in which who has to decide the question of non-arbitrability.
It is expressed that the general rule is that the Arbitral Tribunal is the
preferred first authority to determine and decide all questions of non-
arbitrability. Rarely as a demurrer, the Court may interfere at the
stage of Section 11 of the Act when it is manifestly and ex facie certain
that the arbitration agreement is non-existent, invalid or disputes are
non-arbitrable. It conveys that the Court has to appoint Arbitrator
unless a party has established a prima facie case of non-existence of
valid arbitration agreement.
21. The learned counsel appearing for non-applicants by
placing reliance on the decision in case of Indian Oil Corporation
Limited Vs. NCC Limited, 2022 SCC Onlien SC 896 would submit that
in cases of restricted Arbitration Clause specifically excluding certain
area from Arbitration, it cannot be invoked. Pertinent to note that in
the said decision, it has also been observed that the Court at the stage
of deciding Section 11 application, it is always advisable
and appropriate that in case of debatable and disputed
facts, the same should be left to the Arbitral Tribunal.
22. According to the non-applicants, unless the Court decides
about existence of arbitral dispute, the matter cannot be referred. In
this regard, reliance is placed on the decision in case of KSS KSSIIPL
Consortium Vs. Gail (India) Limited, (2015) 4 SCC 210 , of which my
attention is invited to para 9 which reads as under:-
"9. There can be no manner of doubt that before exercising the
power under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act to make
appointment of an arbitrator the Court will have to decide on the
existence of an arbitrable dispute/enforceable claim by and
between the parties to the contract. The existence of a claim and
denial thereof giving rise to a dispute is required to be
determined on the basis of what the parties had agreed upon as
embodied in the terms of the contract and only for the purpose
of a decision on the question of arbitrability and nothing beyond.
It is from the aforesaid standpoint that the issues raised in the
present proceedings will have to be considered."
23. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the
applicant submits that the applicant is a partner of firm which is not in
dispute. Existence of Arbitration Clause in the agreement is also not
denied. It is submitted that this is a case where the inbuilt Arbitration
Clause has not restricted the scope of reference.
24. While dealing with the application under Section 11(6) of
the Act, there is a narrow scope of examination, confined only to trace
out whether there exists an 'arbitrable dispute' and a 'written contract'
providing Arbitration Clause as a dispute resolution mechanism. It is
consistently followed that once the existence of the arbitration
agreement was established, all other incidental issues should be left to
be decided by the Arbitrator as prescribed under Section 16 of the Act.
25. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant relied on
the decision of the Supreme Court in case of DLF Home Developers
Limited Vs. Rajapura Homes Private Limited with connected another
matter (Arbitration Petition (Civil) No. 17/2020), decided on
22.09.2021 to contend that jurisdiction of Court under Section 11 of
the Act is primarily to find out whether there exist a written agreement
by which the parties agreed to resolve dispute through arbitration.
Further, by placing reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in
case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd & another Vs. M/s. Nortel Networks
India Pvt. Ltd. (Civil Appeal Nos. 843-844 of 2021, decided on
10.03.2021), it has been submitted that, if there is even a slightest
doubt, the rule is to refer the disputes for arbitration, otherwise it
would encroach upon what is essentially a matter to be determined by
the Tribunal.
26. The objection is about non-arbitrability of the issue
involved. It is argued by the non-applicants there is no agreement in
between the parties to pay dues as has been claimed. In other words,
it is the submission that though the applicant claims sum of Rs. 35
crores, it is without foundation as well as there is no agreement about
payment and thus, in absence of valid agreement, the matter cannot be
referred. The dispute arose out of partnership business mainly on
account of sharing of profit or property in lieu of profit. This,
essentially relates to the facts certainly to be decided by the Tribunal.
Worth of factual allegations relating to the issue in dispute is not
permissible to be considered within the limited scope and ambit of
inquiry under Section 11 of the Act. The Supreme Court in case of
Mohammed Masroor Shaikh Vs. Bharat Bhushan Gupta and others ,
(Civil Appeal No. 874/2022, decided on 02.02.2022) by referring its
earlier decision in case of Vidya Drolia (supra) ruled that if the matter
is plainly arguable, the matter requires to be referred to the Tribunal.
The relevant observations made in para 11 reads as under:-
"11. Thus, this Court held that while dealing with petition
under Section 11, the Court by default would refer the
matter when contentions relating to non-arbitrability are
plainly arguable. In such case, the issue of non-arbitrability
is left open to be decided by the Arbitral Tribunal. On
perusal of the impugned order, we find that the issues of
non-arbitrability and the claim being time barred have not
been concluded by the learned Single Judge of the Bombay
High Court, In fact, in clause (vii) of the operative part of
the impugned Order, the learned Single Jude has observed
that the contentions of the parties have been kept open.
The petitions filed by the appellant under Section 34 of the
Arbitration Act, challenging the Order dated 25 th May 2021
are pending before the High Court in which the appellant
can raise all permissible contentions."
27. The non-applicant has submitted that the applicant has
sold some of the property in furtherance of settlement arrived between
the parties. Certain copies of documents have been tendered on record
to contend that the applicant though sold the property, it has been
suppressed. It reveals that the power of attorney has been issued in
favour of the applicant authorizing him to sell scheduled property.
Non-disclosure of sale instances does not mean that entire dispute is
fully and finally settled. There exists arguable issue whether the claim
arising out of partnership business has been finally settled or not which
is a question of fact requires resolution by the appropriate authority.
The learned counsel appearing for the non-applicants would submit
that since the applicant has acted in fraudulent manner, the matter
cannot be referred for arbitration. In response, the learned counsel
appearing for the applicant would submit that mere allegation of fraud
is not enough to take the matter out of the purview of arbitration. To
substantiate said contention, he relied on the decision of the Supreme
Court in case of A. Ayyasamy Vs. A. Paramasivam and others, (2016)
10 SCC 386, wherein it is ruled that mere allegation of fraud is not
sufficient to detract parties from the obligation to submit their dispute
to arbitration. The said course is permissible only if serious issue of
fraud involving criminal wrong exist ex facie.
28. Arbitration Clause No. 13 does not restrict the scope of
arbitration to particular area. The parties have agreed to refer a
dispute regarding preparation of accounts, profit or loss of business
along with right and liabilities. The monetary claim raised on account
of partnership dues cannot be said to be out of the preview of the
agreed terms. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant has
relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in case of Pravin Electricals
Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Galaxy Infra And Engineering Pvt. Ltd. (Civil Appeal No.
825/2021, decided on 08.03.2021) to contend that at referral stage,
the Court would apply only prima facie test and in case of debatable
and arguable case then matter be referred for arbitration as the Arbitral
Tribunal has primary jurisdiction and authority to decide the dispute
including the question of jurisdiction and non-arbitrability. The dispute
is prima facie covered under Clause No. 13 of the agreement. The
term 'dispute' must be read in general sense by giving ordinary
meaning. Claim is about dues from the partnership firm and thus, it
relates to the agreed terms.
29. Perusal of all partnership deeds convey in unequivocal
terms that the parties have agreed to resolve the dispute by way of
arbitration. The applicant's claim is based on the deed of partnership
dated 01.04.2019 which bears Arbitration Clause No. 13 in
unambiguous terms. Though the applicant denied the existence of
revised partnership deed dated 30.06.2021, it also bears Clause No. 14
which is in resemblance to Clause No. 13 of admitted document. The
Arbitration Clause does not limit the extent to be referred for
arbitration. On deliberation of rival contention, it emerges that arbitral
dispute exists in between the parties. In view of settled position of law,
the case is made out to refer the dispute to be resolved by Arbitrator.
The application deserves to be allowed and it is allowed accordingly.
30. When it is expressed that the sole Arbitrator is to be
appointed, both learned counsel agreed to appoint Former Justice R. K.
Deshpande, as a sole Arbitrator.
31. Accordingly, Former Justice R. K. Deshpande, is appointed
as a sole Arbitrator. It is made clear that all objections sought to be
raised on behalf of the non-applicants, are kept open, may be raised
before the learned Arbitrator.
32. The Registry is directed to request the learned Arbitrator
for consent letter and for disclosure statement as per the provisions of
the Act.
Digitally
signed by
JITENDRA
JITENDRA BHARAT
BHARAT GOHANE
GOHANE Date:
2022.11.29
19:25:20
(VINAY JOSHI, J.)
+0530
Gohane
