Amarjeetsingh Saluja vs Gaurav Saluja
2022 Latest Caselaw 3978 MP

                             - : 1 :-



    IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT
                    INDORE

                            BEFORE
              HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA

                 ON THE 23rd OF MARCH, 2022

              ARBITRATION CASE No. 52 of 2021

  Between:-
  AMARJEETSINGH   SALUJA S/O      SHRI
  JAGATSINGH SALUJA , AGED ABOUT 59
  YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS 28-41/301,
  VEER SARVARKAR NAGAR, ROAD NO. 5,
  INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                                    .....APPLICANT


  AND

   GAURAV SALUJA S/O SHRI OMPRAKASH
   SALUJA , AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
1.
   OCCUPATION: BUSINESS 511 VISHNUPURI
   ANNEX, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
   JASBEER KAUR W/O SHRI PREETPALSINGH
   , AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
2. BUSINESS   10,  A.B.   ROAD.   MATA
   GUJRIHOSPITAL ADITYA NAGAR. INDORE
   (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                              .....NON-APPLICANT
                            ORDER

Shri Vishal Baheti, learned counsel for the Petitioner. Shri Manish Nair, learned counsel for the Respondent [R-2]. Shri Tarang Chelawat, learned counsel for the Respondent [INT].

******

- : 2 :-

Present Arbitration Case is filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 whereby applicant is seeking appointment of arbitrator in order to resolve dispute with non-applicants.

Facts of the case in short are as under:-

The applicant and non-applicant No.1 and 2 formed the partnership firm in the name of " Mahalaxmi Developers" and deed to that effect was executed on 18.11.2013. As per the other terms and conditions of the deed the applicant is having 20 % and non- applicant No.1 and 2 are having 40% - 40% shares each in the firm. The property bearing No.41, Sector -B, Khasra No.171/1/1/2, 171/2/2/1, 171/2/2/2, 171/11/1/1, 173/2/2/1, 171/3/1 and 171/3/2 admeasuring 0.046 hectare i.e. 5000 Sq.feet was purchased by the partnership firm by way of the registered sale deed dated 20.11.2013. Thereafter a hotel was constructed and same was leased out on rent of Rs.2,00,000/- per month on 01.09.2017 for the period of five years. According to the applicant the tenant has now vacated the said premises and non-applicants are trying to alienate without taking him into confidence, therefore, he has requested the non-applicants to settle the account of the partnership deed. The applicant served the notice dated 16.06.2021 to the non-applicants invoking arbitration clause No.16 of the Partnership Deed . The non-applicant No.1 sent a reply that the applicant had already retired from the firm by executing Retirement-Cum- Admission Deed date 12.12.2020, hence he is no more in the partner, therefore he cannot invoke the arbitration clause. The applicant gave a reply

- : 3 :-

denying his signature on Retirement-Cum- Admission Deed as it is a forged document. Hence, present AC before this Court.

The non-applicant No.1 has filed reply opposing the appointment of an arbitrator on the same grounds stated in the reply to the notice given by the applicant. It is further submitted that the applicant has made the complaint to the police as well as approached the Judicial Magistrate First Class under section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. The Superintendent of Police (West) sent the Retirement- Cum- Admission Deed for forensic examination to State Examiner of Questioned Documents of Government of Madhya Pradesh in which the signature of the applicant has found genuine, hence, after retirement from the firm, he cannot be permitted to invoke the arbitration clause. It is further submitted that after the retirement of the applicant, Saurabh Saluja has been inducted as a partner with a share of 40%.

Shri Manish Nair, appearing on behalf of the non-applicant No.2 is not opposing the application filed by the applicant and prays that the matter may be referred to the Arbitrator.

Saurabh Saluja has filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 R/w Section 151 of C.P.C. seeking impleadment as non- applicant in this case on the ground that now he has become a partner in the firm and he has an interest in the properties of the firm, therefore, he is also a necessary party.

Shri Baheti submits that in the original partnership deed the proposed intervenor is not a party, therefore, the third party cannot be permitted to intervene in the arbitration proceedings. In support

- : 4 :-

of his contention, he has placed reliance on the judgment passed in the case of Rashi Raza Vs. Sadaf Aktar (2019) 8 SCC 710, Ameet Lalchand Shah Vs. Rishab Enterprises, (2018) 15 SCC 678, Branch Manager Magma Leasing Vs. Potluri Madhavilata (2009) 10 SCC 103, V.H. Patel & Company Vs. Hirubhai Himabhai Patel (2000) 4 SCC 368 and Rajeev Aghihotri Vs. Ashok Jain 2121 (4) MPLJ 426 (AC No.9/2020).

Per contra counsel for the intervenor has placed reliance over the judgments passed by the Apex Court in the case of Acqua Baorewell Pvt. Ltd Vs. Swayam Prabha & others (Civil Appeal Nos. 6779-6780 of 2021), State Bank of India Vs. Ericsson India Pvt Ltd reported in (2018) 16 SCC 617, Vidya Drolia and Ors Vs. Durga Trading Corporation and Ors. reported in (2021) 2 SCC 1.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

Execution of partnership deed dated 18.11.2013 is not in dispute in which originally this applicant and two non-applicants were partners and there is arbitration clause No.16. Even if the applicant has retired from the firm by virtue of Retirement-Cum- Admission Deed dated 12.12.2020 but according to him, his account and shares has not been settled which is required to be adjudicated by way of arbitration proceedings, therefore, the dispute is liable to be referred to the arbitrator in order to resolve the dispute between applicant and non-applicants.

So far as an issue whether the signature of the applicant in

- : 5 :-

the Retirement-Cum- Admission Deed dated 12.12.2020 is forged or not same is also liable to be decided by the arbitrator.

If the arbitrator comes to the conclusion that Retirement- Cum- Admission Deed dated 12.12.2020 is executed and in place of the applicant, proposed intervenor was inducted as a partner then the intervenor may have locus to seek intervention in the arbitration proceedings by filling appropriate applicant , therefore reserving the right of present intervenor for participation in the arbitration proceedings, the AC is disposed of by appointing Shri V S Kokje Rtd Judge of High Court as sole arbitrator.

Office is directed to send information to Shri V.S. Kokje Rtd Judge of High Court with copy of this order and formal consent be obtained from him and consent be placed on record.

Parties are directed to appear before the sole arbitrator on 06.04.2022.

(VIVEK RUSIA ) JUDGE

praveen/-

Digitally signed by PRAVEEN NAYAK Date: 2022.03.28 10:10:17 +05'30'