HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY (Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction) — Sandeep V. Marne, J. — Three connected matters jointly disposed on 18 April 2026: Arbitration Application No. 272 of 2025 (Section 11 r/w Sections 14 and 15, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — appointment of substitute Arbitrator after resignation); Arbitration Petition (L) No. 1134 of 2026 (Section 9 interim measures); and Arbitration Petition (L) No. 20092 of 2025 (Mr. Ravi Iqbal Ghai seeking declaration that no valid or binding arbitration agreement arises from the Supplemental Family Agreement dated 25 August 2023 and that the appointment of the previous Arbitrator, Mr. Justice R.D. Dhanuka, former Chief Justice of this Court, is ab initio void; the Petition had been rejected by the registry under Rule 986, Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules, 1980, and was restored for disposal). Background per the judgment: Family Settlement Agreement said to have been executed on 9 November 2021; Supplemental Agreement claimed on 25 August 2023, both containing arbitration agreements; both terminated by letter dated 22 April 2025 addressed on behalf of Mr. Ravi Ghai; arbitration invoked by Mr. Gaurav Ghai on 20 May 2025; Justice R.D. Dhanuka appointed sole Arbitrator with purported consent of the parties; on 25 June 2025 Mr. Ravi Iqbal Ghai objected (coercive consent qua the Family Settlement Agreement; fraudulent execution qua the Supplemental Family Agreement; allegations that he never instructed his own Advocates and Solicitors to issue the termination notice); the Arbitrator resigned on 4 July 2025 citing those objections and the possibility of a partner of the Solicitor's Firm being a potential witness. HELD: the reference being alive and the Arbitrator having resigned, Section 15(2) ('shall') duty-binds the Court to appoint a substitute — Mr. Justice Sunil B. Shukre, former Judge of this Court, appointed sole Arbitrator; whether Mr. Ravi Iqbal Ghai executed the agreements and whether his consent was vitiated by duress/coercion/fraud is expressly left to the Arbitral Tribunal; his letter of 25 June 2025 prima facie admits his signature on the Family Settlement Agreement (execution undisputed, only coercive consent asserted; its arbitration clause undisputed) and on some pages of the Supplemental Family Agreement. The Section 9 petition is converted into a Section 17 Application, and the ad-interim restraint (order dated 16 January 2026) on Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 transferring shares of Respondent No.4-LLP operates till the Tribunal decides that Application. Petition No. 20092 of 2025 disposed of as infructuous; Respondent No. 1 therein (the Solicitors, M/s. Vimadalal & Co.) not to be subjected to any action for the affidavit filed on 19 August 2025 pursuant to the order dated 14 August 2025 — not a breach of professional commitment; affidavit retained in Court records. Counsel-invoked precedents, not engaged with by the Court: Vidya Drolia & Others V/s. Durga Trading Corporation, (2021) 2 SCC 1; Avital Post Studioz Limited & Ors. V/s. HSBC PI Holdings (Mauritius) Ltd., (2021) 4 SCC 713. All issues on merits expressly kept open.
