Disposed¶31

Hitendra D Barai v. Compak

Bombay HC12 Feb 2026ARBAP/29/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 11 Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996; appointment of sole arbitrator; arbitration clause in Partnership Deed dated 27 November 2007; seat of arbitration at Mumbai; Hitendra D. Barai v. M/s. Compak & Anr.; Bombay High Court OOCJ ARBAP 29/2026; Sandeep V. Marne J.; Arti Raghavan sole Arbitrator; Statement of Disclosure Section 11(8) read with Section 12(1); Bombay High Court (Fee Payable to Arbitrators) Rules 2018; arbitral costs borne equally; all merits issues kept open; application disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Appointment of Ms. Arti Raghavan, Advocate, as sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes and differences between the parties arising out of the Partnership Deed dated 27 November 2007. ¶31

Hitendra D Barai vs Compak — Arbitration | Bombay HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appointment of Ms. Arti Raghavan, Advocate, as sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes and differences between the parties arising out of the Partnership Deed dated 27 November 2007.

¶31

Issue for consideration

Whether an arbitration agreement exists between the Applicant and the Respondents arising out of the Partnership Deed dated 27 November 2007, justifying appointment of an Arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

¶19

Court's answer

The Partnership Deed contains an arbitration clause and the Court is satisfied about the existence of an arbitration agreement between the parties.

¶19

Ratio / Principle

The seat of the Arbitration is at Mumbai, as the Partnership Deed was executed in Mumbai and the Respondents are located at Mumbai.

¶19

Key takeaways

Ms. Arti Raghavan, an Advocate practising in the Court, is appointed as sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes and differences between the parties arising out of the Partnership Deed dated 27 November 2007.ratio¶21
All issues on merits are expressly kept open to be agitated before the Arbitral Tribunal appointed by this order.ratio¶30

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction), Sandeep V. Marne, J. — Arbitration Application No. 29 of 2026, decided 24 April 2026: Application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 by Hitendra D. Barai for appointment of an Arbitrator for disputes arising out of a Partnership Deed dated 27 November 2007 with M/s. Compak & Anr. Respondents were duly served with notice but did not appear. On perusal, the Court found the Partnership Deed to contain an arbitration clause, noted that the Deed was executed in Mumbai and the Respondents are located at Mumbai, and held the seat of arbitration to be at Mumbai; the Court expressed satisfaction as to the existence of an arbitration agreement. Ms. Arti Raghavan, Advocate, was appointed sole Arbitrator; she is to forward the statutory Statement of Disclosure under Section 11(8) read with Section 12(1) within two weeks; her fees are as prescribed under the Bombay High Court (Fee Payable to Arbitrators) Rules, 2018, with arbitral costs and fees borne equally by the parties and subject to the final Award. All issues on merits are expressly kept open to be agitated before the Arbitral Tribunal. The Application is disposed of.

¶1

2026:BHC-OS:10829

¶2

Megha 3_arbap_29_2026

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

ARBITRATION APPLICATION NO.29 OF 2026

Hitendra D. Barai

...Applicant

V/s.

M/s. Compak & Anr.

...Respondents

Mr. Bharat M. Mirchandani with Mr. Talib R. Kalandan i/b. Mr. Manoj M. Mirchandani for the Applicant.

¶11

CORAM: SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

¶12

DATED: 24 APRIL 2026.

¶13

P.C.:

¶14

This is an Application filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ( the Arbitration Act ) for appointment of an Arbitrator for adjudication of disputes and differences between the parties arising out of Partnership Deed dated 27 November 2007.

¶15

I have heard Mr. Mirchandani, the learned counsel appearing for the Applicant.

¶16

By order dated 12 February 2026 this Court issued notices to the Respondents. Office report indicates that notices have been duly served. However, none appears on behalf of the Respondents.

¶17

Page No.1 of 3 24 April 2026

¶18

Megha 3_arbap_29_2026

¶19

Perusal of the Partnership Deed would indicate presence of arbitration clause. Partnership Deed is executed in Mumbai. The Respondents are also located at Mumbai. In that view of the matter, seat of the Arbitration is at Mumbai. This Court is thus satisfied about the existence of arbitration agreement between the parties.

¶20

1. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order:-

¶21

(A) Ms. Arti Raghavan, an Advocate practising in this Court is appointed as sole Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes and differences between the parties arising out of Partnership Deed dated 27 November 2007. The contact details of the Arbitrator are as under:-

¶22

Office Address:401, Embassy Centre, Jamnalal Bajaj Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400 021.

¶23

Email id:[email protected] Mobile No.:9004431865

¶24

(B) A copy of this order be communicated to the learned sole Arbitrator by the Advocates for the Applicant within a period of one week from the date of uploading of this order. The Applicant shall provide the contact and communication particulars of the parties to the Arbitral Tribunal alongwith a copy of this order.

¶25

(C) The learned sole Arbitrator is requested to forward the statutory Statement of Disclosure under Section 11(8) read with Section 12(1) of the Act to the parties within a period of 2 weeks from receipt of a copy of this order.

¶26

Page No.2 of 3 24 April 2026

¶27

Megha 3_arbap_29_2026

¶28

(D) The parties shall appear before the learned sole Arbitrator on such date and at such place as indicated by her, to obtain appropriate direction with regard to conduct of the arbitration including fixing a schedule for pleadings, examination of witnesses, if any, schedule of hearings etc.

¶29

(E) The fees of the sole Arbitrator shall be as prescribed under the Bombay High Court (Fee Payable to Arbitrators) Rules, 2018 and the arbitral costs and fees of the Arbitrator shall be borne by the parties in equal portion and shall be subject to the final Award that may be passed by the Tribunal.

¶30

1. All issues on merits are expressly kept open to be agitated before the Arbitral Tribunal appointed as above.

¶31

1. With the above directions, the Application is disposed of.

¶32

[SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]

¶33

Signed by: Megha S. Parab Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 28/04/2026 12:02:34

¶34

Page No.3 of 3 24 April 2026

Hitendra D Barai v. Compak

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hitendra D Barai v. Compak

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Indus Realty Through its Partner Faizan Gubitra vs Dhavalgiri Co. operative Housing Society Ltd.

Jogesh Cooperative Housing Society vs Kcd Heritage Private Limited

Ratansingh Motisingh Rathore vs Mundara Developers

Westbuild Realty Pvt. Ltd. vs New Sputnik Cooperative Housing Society

Hitesh Kothari vs Pumarth Infrastructure Private Limited

Anand Consultant Services vs Emproy Hospitality LLP