Allowed

Manjusha Nishikant Shinde v. Mohhammadlliyas Harun Rashid Bhokre

Bombay HC29 Nov 2023ARP/158/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay appointed a sole arbitrator in a petition for arbitration arising from a partnership dispute where the respondent failed to respond to notices or agree on an arbitrator.

What did the court decide?

Appointment of Shri Jayant V. Navale as a Sole Arbitrator; direction to parties to appear before arbitrator within ten days; direction for filing disclosure statement.

Manjusha Nishikant Shinde Vs Mohhammadlliyas Harun Rashid Bhokre — Arbitration | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

2023:BHC-AS:36200

¶2

1/3 32-asarp-158-2021.doc

¶3

Gaikwad RD

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶5

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶6

ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 158 OF 2021

¶7

Manjusha Nishikant Shinde …Petitioner Versus Mohhammadlliyas Harun Rashid Bhokre …Respondent

¶8

Mr. Prashant J. Kenjale, with Adv. Minal Chandani and Adv. Sai Rajendra Kadam, for Petitioner. Mr. Vignesh Ashokan, i/b. Adv. R. Shelke, for Respondent.

¶9

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

¶10

PC:-

¶11

The Petitioner seeks appointment of an arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties, which have arisen out of the partnership deed dated 18th June 2016.

¶12

The parties entered into partnership with an object of carrying on the business of fabrication in Taluka Miraj, District Sangli on certain terms and conditions set out in the partnership agreement.

¶13

Mr. Prashant Kenjale, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner states that there were disputes between the parties in respect of accounting of monies as well as arrangement of their respective shares in the partnership. Since the Respondent refused to resolve the issues, the Petitioner through her Counsel issued a legal notice dated 3^rd January 2020 to the Respondent calling upon him to submit their disputes to arbitration as per the partnership agreement. There was no reply of the Respondent. Hence, once again vide notice dated 18^th June 2020, the Petitioner issued another notice calling

¶14

2/3 32-asarp-158-2021.doc

¶15

upon the Respondent to agree to appoint any one of the three individuals suggested by the Petitioner in her notice dated 3^rd January 2020. Again, there was no reply. In these circumstances, the Petitioner has approached this Court for appointment of an arbitrator.

¶16

I have perused the partnership deed and the notices issued by the Petitioner. Clause (19) of the partnership deed reads as under:

¶17

“19. ARBITRATION:-

¶18

That in the event of any dispute between the partners of the legal representatives, either in the conduct of business or as regards terms of this partnership or on dissolution, such disputes will be referred to an arbitrator as agreed to between the partners and/or the legal representatives of the deceased partner and in the event of their being no agreement or appointment by each of the partners and the decision of such arbitrator/arbitrators will be binding on all the parties. In case of more than one arbitrator and in absence of consensus between them the difference will be referred to an umpire as agreed between them and his decision will be binding on all the parties. ”

¶19

In view of the foregoing, I pass the following order.

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Shri. Jayant V. Navale, Advocate is appointed as a Sole Arbitrator to enter reference and adjudicate the disputes between the parties out of the Partnership Agreement dated 18^th June 2016. The seat of the arbitration shall be Sangli.

¶22

3/3 32-asarp-158-2021.doc

¶23

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.

¶24

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.

¶25

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

¶26

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.

¶27

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

¶28

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

¶29

“Shri. Jayant V. Navale, Advocate ‘Suvivaj’, Chintamaninagar, Sangli 416 416. Email: [email protected] Mob.No.: 9822477723/8275266085.”

¶30

(DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J.)

¶31

Signed by: Raju D. Gaikwad Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 06/12/2023 10:30:48

Manjusha Nishikant Shinde v. Mohhammadlliyas Harun Rashid Bhokre

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manjusha Nishikant Shinde v. Mohhammadlliyas Harun Rashid Bhokre

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

Avarsekar Realty Private Limited Vs Ashok Paranjpe and Anr.