[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Telangana High Court
Praful R. Shah vs M/S. Ashoka Rubber Products on 13 April, 2026
Author: P.Sam Koshy
Bench: P.Sam Koshy
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY
ARBITRATION APPLICATION No.235 of 2024
DATE: 13.04.2026
Between:
Praful R. Shah, S/o. Jupudi Vittal.
...Applicant
AND
M/s. Ashoka Rubber Products and 5 Others.
...Respondents
ORDER:
Heard Mr. S.V. Rama Krishna, learned counsel for the applicant;
and Ms. Manjari S. Ganu, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4 & 6.
2. The instant Arbitration Application under Section 11 (5) & (6) of
the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short the 'Act') has been
filed by the applicant seeking for appointment of an Arbitrator to
adjudicate upon the disputes that have arisen between the applicant and
the respondents in pursuance of the Partnership Deed dated 01.04.1992.
3. It is the case of the applicant that respondent No.2 along with
respondent Nos.2 to 5 constituted a partnership firm in the name of
M/s. Ashoka Rubber Products i.e. respondent No.1. The said partnership
firm was established to carry out business of manufacturing, dealing,
commission agent, stockists, distributors, suppliers and exporters of latex
foam, rubber bands, all types of gloves, dipped boots and allied rubber
boots either in wholesale or retail. Accordingly, an initial partnership
deed was executed in writing on 10.02.1974 by respondent No.2,
Mr. Jethalal P. Shah and Smt. Pan Bai and the firm was duly registered.
The partnership firm was again reconstituted when the applicant was
admitted as one of the partners by entering into a partnership deed dated
19.07.1975.
4. It is further case of the applicant that pursuant to the death of
Mr. Jethalal P. Shah on 05.10.2019, respondent No.6 claiming himself as
a legatee under the Will dated 06.09.2019, claimed the assets of
Mr. Jethalal P. Shah and accordingly filed a civil suit i.e. O.S.No.69 of
2020 before the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The applicant
filed a detailed written statement opposing the said suit. The applicant
had also filed O.S.No.1003 of 2020 before the VII Junior Civil Judge,
City Civil Court, Hyderabad seeking to declare himself, Mr. Jeetendar P.
Shah and Mr. Shantilal P. Shah as the only legal heirs of late Mr. Jethalal
P. Shah. However, the aforesaid two suits are pending consideration.
5. It was contended by the applicant that the business was not in
operation since the year 2007; therefore, the assets and liabilities of the
partnership firm are liable to be divided among the partners by dissolving
the partnership firm.
6. The applicant submitted that he had sent a legal notice dated
27.06.2024 directing the respondents to come forward and distribute the
assets and liabilities of the firm, failing which the applicant would
invoke the arbitration clause in terms of the reconstituted partnership
deed dated 01.04.1992 to resolve the disputes by appointing Mr. V.S.R.
Avadhani, Retired District Judge as the sole Arbitrator. However, the
notice sent to respondent No.1 was returned with an endorsement 'door
lock' and the notice sent to respondent Nos.2 to 6 was served and they
refused for appointment of Mr. V.S.R. Avadhani, Retired District Judge
as the sole Arbitrator.
7. On the contrary, the respondents contended that the O.S.No.69 of
2020 filed seeking to declare respondent No.6 as the sole legatee is
decreed by the Trial Court in favour of respondent No.6 vide judgment
and decree dated 19.08.2025. However, the respondents submitted that
the O.S.No.1003 of 2020 filed seeking to declare the applicant and
Mr. Jeetender P. Shah and respondent No.2 as the only legal heirs is still
pending.
8. According to the respondents, though the applicant sent a legal
notice dated 27.06.2024 stating the partnership firm would stand
dissolved on receipt of notice by the respondents, however the
respondent Nos.2 to 6 replied stating that in view of the reconstituted
partnership deed dated 01.04.1992 is not at 'Will' the partnership firm
can only dissolved by mutual consent of the parties and not by
appointment of an Arbitrator.
9. Having heard the contentions put forth on either side and on
perusal of records, some of the admitted factual matrix of the case are
that :-
(a) The respondent No.2 along with respondent Nos.2 to 5 constituted
a partnership firm in the name of M/s. Ashoka Rubber Products;
(b) The partnership firm was reconstituted again when the applicant
was admitted as a partner;
(c) No business activities were carried out since the year 2007;
(d) The applicant though legal notice directed the respondents to come
forward and distribute the assets and liabilities of the firm within a
week failing which he would invoke the arbitration clause as is
mentioned in the reconstituted partnership deed dated 01.04.1992.
10. It would be relevant at this juncture to take note of the arbitration
clause i.e. Clause No.14 reflected in the reconstituted partnership deed
dated 01.04.1992. For ready reference, Clause No.14 is reproduced
hereunder, viz.,
"Any difference which may arise between the parties or their
representatives regarding the interpretation of this presents or
regarding the rights and liabilities of any of the parties arising
hereunder or any other matter or things concerning the firm or the
affairs thereof shall be referred to arbitration and award of the
arbitrator or arbitrators shall be binding upon all the parties
subject to the law of arbitration that may be in force for time
being."
A bare perusal of the aforesaid arbitration clause of the
reconstituted partnership deed would make it clear that any dispute
which has arisen between the parties to the agreement has to be resolved
by way of arbitration and the award passed by the Arbitrator shall be
binding upon all the parties to the agreement.
11. Furthermore, all the objections that the respondents have can be
raised before the Arbitrator, which the Arbitrator is expected to take note
of, and decide the same after hearing both the sides in accordance with
law.
12. For all the aforesaid reasons, this Court is inclined to appoint an
Arbitrator, who, in turn shall decide the grievances and the claims raised
by the applicant. In the course of deliberation, learned counsel for the
parties have accepted the suggestion of Mr. D.Ravindra Sharma, Retired
District Judge being appointed as an Arbitrator to adjudicate the claim
raised by the applicant. Accordingly, this Court appoints Mr. D.Ravindra
Sharma, Retired District Judge (Flat No.201, Vaishnavi Apartment,
H.No.13-10-95, New Gaddiannaram, Hyderabad - 500 060, Mobile
No.9848790929) to act as an Arbitrator and to pass an appropriate award
in terms of the provisions of the Act. The venue of the arbitration shall be
decided mutually by the parties subject to the consultation and agreement
of the learned Arbitrator. The fees of the learned Arbitrator shall also be
decided mutually by the parties again in consultation and agreement with
the learned Arbitrator and the arbitration proceedings shall be governed
in accordance with the provisions of the Act.
13. The instant Arbitration Application accordingly stands allowed.
14. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any, shall stand
closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
________________
P.SAM KOSHY, J
Date: 13.04.2026
Note: Office to communicate a copy of this order to the learned Arbitrator.
(B/o)GSD
