AO/296/2022
2023 Latest Caselaw 1166 UK

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
                                  AT NAINITAL
                   HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI VIPIN SANGHI
                                          AND
                      HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR VERMA

                   APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 296 OF 2022
                              27TH APRIL, 2023
BETWEEN:
Jagdish Bhatia                                                 .....Appellant.
And

Parvati Devi & others                                          ....Respondents.

Counsel for the Appellant : Mr. Ramji Srivastava and Mr. Nikhil Singhal, learned counsels.

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2, 4 to 9 : Mr. Neeraj Garg, learned counsel.

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.3, 10 to 14: Mr. Piyush Garg, learned counsel.

The Court made the following:

JUDGMENT:(per Hon'ble The Chief Justice Sri Vipin Sanghi)

The present appeal, under Section 37 of the

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, is directed against the order

dated 02.08.2022, passed in Arbitration Case No.70 of 2022.

2. By the impugned order, learned Additional District

Judge (Commercial), while dealing with the petition preferred

by the appellant herein, under Section 9 of the Arbitration

and Conciliation Act, issued notice to the respondents.

However, no ex parte ad-interim order of injunction, as

sought by the appellant, was granted while observing that

considering the facts of the case, without hearing to the

opposite party, granting ex parte interim injunction order,

would not be appropriate and legal.

3. The submission of the appellant is that the

appellant is a partner in the partnership firm namely Bhatia

Enterprises, of which, the respondents herein are partners/

heirs of erstwhile partners. The case of the appellant is that

he has 4% share in the said partnership firm, which has

landed assets. The grievance of the appellant was that the

other partners/ legal heirs of the partners were disposing of

the properties of the Firm to a third party, and also amongst

themselves without his consent, which was mandated under

the terms of the partnership.

4. It is argued by learned counsels for the

respondents that the notice dissolving the partnership was

issued on 21.01.2011 by Mr. Jeet Ram Bhatia, whose legal

representatives are respondent nos.10 to 14 in the present

appeal.

5. Admittedly, the said notice was served upon the

appellant and the appellant also responded to the said notice.

The partnership was a partnership at Will. Prima facie, upon

issuance of the said notice, the partnership stood dissolved.

6. It is argued by Mr. Ramji Srivastava that, apart

from selling their shares amongst the partners/ heirs, sale of

share in the partnership was also undertaken in favour of a

third party.

7. In response to our query, we are informed that the

said sale took place in the year 2006, i.e. before the

dissolution. Prima facie, the challenge to the said sale or

grievance in that regard would be barred by limitation, and it

would be for the appellant to make out a case that the

challenge to the same, or grievance with regard to the same

is not barred by limitation now.

8. In our view, the appellant did not make out prima

facie case for grant of an ex parte ad-interim injunction order,

as sought by him. Pertinently, we had called the parties since

it was offered by the respondents that the appellant may

choose 4% share in the landed property by demarcation on

the plan. However, the appellant does not appear to be

interested in the same, and is keen that other partners may

sell their shares to him.

9. It is not for this Court to compel other partners to

sell their shares to the appellant. That is a matter inter se

between the appellant and the other partners, and it is open

to the appellant to approach the other shareholders in the

erstwhile partnership to buy all their shares.

10. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any merit

in the appeal, and the same is accordingly dismissed.

11. We, however, make it clear that the observations

made hereinabove are only to deal with the present appeal,

and they shall not come in the way of either party during the

hearing of the petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and

Conciliation Act, which is pending before the Commercial

Court.

12. The appeal stands disposed of in the aforesaid

terms.

13. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.

(VIPIN SANGHI, C.J.)

(ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J.) Dated: 27th April, 2023 NISHANT