Dismissed

Mr. Maruti Ramchandra Chachar v. Mrs. Kalpana Uttam Chachar

Bombay HC23 Oct 2015ARA/9/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single judge dismissed an arbitration appeal against an interim order restraining a partner from obstructing another partner's entry into a partnership firm's premises. The court held that since the firm was not dissolved and the order was interim, no intervention was needed. The ancillary civil application was disposed of.

What did the court decide?

The interim order restraining the appellant from obstructing the respondent's entry was upheld. The civil application for interim relief was disposed of.

Mr. Maruti Ramchandra Chachar Vs Mrs. Kalpana Uttam… — Specific Performance | Bombay HC (2015)

aral28865.2015

1/3

Dusane

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

ARBITRATION APPEAL (ST.) NO.28865 OF 2015

¶6

WITH

¶7

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.45 OF 2015

¶8

Mr. Maruti Ramchandra Chachar .... Appellant Vs. Mrs. Kalpana Uttam Chachar .... Respondent

¶9

Mr. Unmesh Dindore, Advocate for the Appellant.

¶10

Mr. Vishal Kanade i/by Mr. Satish Raut, Advocate for the Respondent.

¶11

Coram : Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J. Date : 23^rd October, 2015

¶12

P.C. :

¶13

1 This appeal is preferred against the interim order passed by the District Court, Pune under Section 9(ii)(d)(e) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The order restrains the appellant from obstructing or restricting the entry of the respondent into the premises of the partnership firm i.e. M/s Precision Engineering Industries, Plot no.15-B/4, D-1 Block, MIDC, Chinchwad, Pune – 411 019 and to restrain the appellant from obstructing the respondent from participating in the business of the partnership firm i.e. M/s Precision Engineering

aral28865.2015

Dusane

2/3

Industries. The order further directs that if the premises of the partnership firm is locked, then the respondent with the help of local police authorities, is entitled to remove the lock and enter into the said premises.

¶18

2 There is no dispute that the appellant and the respondent are the partners of the partnership firm, M/s Precision Engineering Industries, carrying out business from the above premises. There is also no dispute that the partnership firm is not formally dissolved. Apparently, over the disputes that arose between the partners, the document of partition came to be executed on 20^th February, 2011 recording certain terms. One of the terms under that deed, of payment of Rs.52,00,000/to the respondent was not complied with by the appellant. Consequently in the month of October, 2012, another partition deed was executed between the parties arriving at different terms. It is agreed thereunder that the partnership business, the property and the premises would be divided between the parties, as recorded in the deed. Thereafter the partnership premises were divided and a wall constructed for the purpose of completing the division. The respondent alleges that the appellant has since broken the partition wall and started using the entire premises and thereby prevented her entry into the premises, which was in her possession. The impugned order holds that since the partnership firm is not dissolved, the appellant cannot prevent the entry of the respondent into the

¶19

Dusane

¶20

3/3 aral28865.2015

¶21

premises of the partnership. There is no infirmity whatsoever with the view taken by the District Court, as admittedly there is no dissolution of the partnership firm. Besides the order being only an interim order, requires no interference by this court. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. The office to number the appeal if not already numbered.

¶22

3 In view of the disposal of the Arbitration Appeal, the Civil Application for interim relief therein does not survive, the same is accordingly disposed off.

Mr. Maruti Ramchandra Chachar v. Mrs. Kalpana Uttam Chachar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Maruti Ramchandra Chachar v. Mrs. Kalpana Uttam Chachar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S. Cms Computers Limited Vs M/S. Kalati Constructions Pvt. Ltd.

M/S. Dynamix Realty Vs Grace Works Realty and Leisure Private Limited

The Fertilisers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd. Vs Idbi Bank Ltd.

Hilton Co-Operative Housing Soceity Ltd. Vs Vardhaman Developers Ltd.

Capri Global Advisory Services Pvt.Ltd. Vs Yogesh Ramratan Sarda and Kavita Yogesh Sarda

Babubhai Constructions through Its Proprietor Sattar Abdulla Shaikh Vs the Mahabaleshwar Hill Station Municipal Council and Ors.