Disposed

Sanjay Kailasnaryan Agarwal v. Limitless Hospitality LLP and Ors.

Bombay HC29 Nov 2023ARP/10/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court, acting on a petition under an arbitration agreement, appointed Ms. Manjiri Parasnis as the sole arbitrator to resolve the dispute. The order mandated the filing of a disclosure statement, set procedural timelines, and disposed of the petition in terms.

What did the court decide?

Appointment of Ms. Manjiri Parasnis as Sole Arbitrator with directions regarding disclosure statement and fee payment.

Sanjay Kailasnaryan Agarwal Vs Limitless Hospitality LLP… — Specific Performance | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

1/4 28-asarp-10-2020.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 10 OF 2020

¶4

Sanjay Kailasnaryan Agarwal …Petitioner Versus Limitless Hospitality LLP & Ors. …Respondents

¶5

Mr. Sudhir V. Sadavarte for Petitioner. Mr. Abhishek Adke for Respondent No. 2.

¶6

CORAM: DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J. DATED: 29^th November 2023

¶7

PC:-

¶8

The Petitioner seeks appointment of an Arbitrator to enter reference and adjudicate upon the dispute that has arisen between the Petitioner and two Respondents pursuant to the agreement dated 20^th May 2016 at Pune. According to the Petitioner, Respondent No. 1 is a limited liability partnership incorporated under the LLP Act, 2008. The object of partnership was to carry on business of processing, manufacturing, producing, mixing, packing, preserving, freezing, extracting, refining distributorship, importing, exporting, buying, selling, trading and dealing with all kinds of food products and beverages including alcoholic and non-alcoholic beverages and to run and manage events, hotels, restaurants, cafes, resorts and lodging in and outside India.

¶9

The learned Counsel for Petitioner states that there has arisen

¶10

Gitalaxmi

¶11

2/4 28-asarp-10-2020.doc

¶12

dispute between the partners, which resulted in a First Information Report being filed by Respondent No. 2 against the Petitioner. The resultant action pursuant to the FIR is not relevant in the present matter.

¶13

3. Clause 22 of the agreement reads as thus,

¶14

“22. DISPUTE RESOLUTION :

¶15

a) All disputes and differences which shall arise between the partners or between the partners and legal representatives of one or more partners or between their respective legal representatives or between designated partners and LLP and whether during or after the determination of the LLP relating to the rights and liabilities or interpretation of this deed or to any act or omission of either party or matter or things done or to be done in pursuance hereof, such disputes and differences shall be resolved in the manner provided in this clause.

¶16

b) The Parties agree that they shall attempt to resolve through good faith consultation, disputes arising in connection with this Agreement, and such consultation shall begin promptly after a Party has delivered to the other Party a written request for such consultation. Provided that if such good faith consultations have not resulted in a resolution of the dispute within sixty (60) days of such consultations having commenced, the provisions of Clause 22(d) shall apply.

¶17

c) Any dispute, which could not be settled by the Parties through amicable settlement (as provided herein above), shall be finally settled by arbitration in accordance with the Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. A notice of the intent to refer the dispute to arbitration may be given by a Party to the other Party.

¶18

d) The disputes shall be referred to a tribunal comprising three (3) arbitrators. The Respondent(s) and the Claimant(s) to the arbitration shall have the right to appoint one arbitrator each and the two arbitrators thus appointed shall choose the third arbitrator who will act

¶19

Gitalaxmi

¶20

3/4 28-asarp-10-2020.doc

¶21

as a presiding arbitrator of the tribunal (together forming the "Arbitral Tribunal”). In the event of failure by the Respondent(s) and/or the Claimant(s) to appoint their arbitrator(s) or by the two arbitrators appointed by the Respondent(s) and the Claimant(s) respectively to appoint the presiding arbitrator, the said arbitrator(s) shall be appointed by the High Court of Mumbai or by independent Company Secretary in Practice. If all the parties appoint arbitrators then that panel of Arbitrators will decide on the dispute. In the event of appointment of only two arbitrators and one party fails to appoint the third arbitrator then these two arbitrators, within a period of 30 days, will appoint the third arbitrator pursuant to the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to form a valid panel of Arbitrators for dissolving the dispute.

¶22

e) Such arbitration shall, unless otherwise agreeable to the Parties, be held at Mumbai, India. All proceedings of such arbitration shall be in the English language.

¶23

f) The decision(s) of the Arbitral Tribunal shall be final and binding on the Parties.”

¶24

Heard learned Counsels of both sides and I have gone through the record with assistance of the learned Counsels of both the parties.

¶25

The Respondents have also agreed for referring the matter to arbitration. In view of the same, I pass the following order :

¶26

ORDER

¶27

a. Ms. Manjiri Parasnis is appointed as a Sole Arbitrator to enter reference and adjudicate the disputes between the parties out of the agreement dated 20^th May 2016. The seat of the arbitration shall be Mumbai as agreed by the parties in clause 22 of the agreement.

¶28

Gitalaxmi

¶29

4/4 28-asarp-10-2020.doc

¶30

b. The learned Sole Arbitrator shall forward a statement of disclosure as per the requirement of Section 12(1) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to the Prothonotary and Senior Master of this Court, to be placed on record of this petition with a copy forwarded to both the parties.

¶31

c. At the first instance the parties shall appear before the learned Arbitrator within a period of ten days from the date of uploading of this order or on such date that may be fixed by the Sole Arbitrator.

¶32

d. All contentions of the parties on merits of the disputes are expressly left open.

¶33

e. The fees payable to the Arbitral Tribunal shall be in accordance with the Bombay High Court (Fee payable to the Arbitrator) Rules, 2018, which shall be borne by the parties in equal proportion.

¶34

f. The petition is disposed of in the above terms. There will be no order as to costs.

¶35

g. Office to forward a copy of this order to the learned Sole Arbitrator on the following address :

¶36

“ 401, 6^th Floor, Om Heights, Opp. Indravdan CHS and Shivsena Bhavan, Padmabai Thakkar Road, Dadar (West), Mumbai – 400028.

¶37

Mobile No. : 9820949227 E-mail ID : [email protected] ”

¶38

(DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J.)

¶39

Digitally signed by GITALAXMI GITALAXMI KRISHNA KRISHNA KOTAWADEKAR KOTAWADEKAR Date: 2023.11.30 10:25:20 +0545

¶40

Gitalaxmi

Sanjay Kailasnaryan Agarwal v. Limitless Hospitality LLP and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay Kailasnaryan Agarwal v. Limitless Hospitality LLP and Ors.

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

Wadhwa Residency Private Limited MUMBAI-400051 Vs Bhavik Chandrakant Shah and Anr.

Wadhwa Residency Private Limited MUMBAI-400051 Vs Bhavik Chandrakant Shah and Anr.

Paranjali Siddharth Chitnis Vs Siddharth Dilip Chitnis

Shri Amar Dattatray Adusle Vs Sou. Rashmi Amar Adsule

Snehal Tatoba Londhe and Anr. through Smt Sangita Sunil Sawalajkar Vs Tatoba Ramesh Londhe

Manjusha Nishikant Shinde Vs Mohhammadlliyas Harun Rashid Bhokre