Disposed

Jyoti Kataria v. Harkaran Singh Sachdev & Ors.

Delhi HC5 Jul 2024O.M.P.(I) (COMM.)/215/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 9 petition alleging diversion of LLP business to a private limited company by respondent No. 1 and his wife. With consent of counsel, disputes between petitioner and respondent No. 1 were referred to arbitration before a sole arbitrator under DIAC rules; petition to be treated as Section 17 application before the arbitrator.

What did the court decide?

Disputes between petitioner and respondent No. 1 referred to sole arbitrator Mr. L.K. Gaur under DIAC; petition treated as Section 17 application before arbitrator.

Jyoti Kataria Vs Harkaran Singh Sachdev & Ors. — Arbitration | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~27

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 215/2024

¶4

JYOTI KATARIA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. A.K. Singla, Senior Advocate with Mr. Rahul Shukla & Mr. Ramandeep Singh, Advocates.

¶5

versus

¶6

HARKARAN SINGH SACHDEV & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Anukul Raj, Ms. Nikita Raj, Mr. Tushar Bhalla & Mr. Pratik Sharma, Advocates.

¶7

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN O R D E R % 05.07.2024

¶8

I.A. 32369/2024 ( Exemption )

¶9

Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

¶10

The application stands disposed of.

¶11

O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 215/2024

¶12

The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [“the Act”], seeking interim measures of protection in anticipation of arbitration proceedings under a “ LLP Agreement ” [“the Agreement”] dated 11.04.2017.

¶13

The petitioner and respondent No. 1 [alongwith a third party by the name of Mrs. Guneet Johar] are parties to the aforesaid Agreement, by which they constituted an LLP. Mrs. Guneet Johar has since retired from

¶14

O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 215/2024

¶15

Page 1 of 3

¶16

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 03/07/2025 at 04:09:59

¶17

the partnership, as evidenced by a supplementary deed dated 31.03.2021. The petitioner and respondent No. 1 alone remain partners in the LLP. Clause 21 of the Agreement provides for resolution of disputes between the partners by arbitration of a sole arbitrator.

¶18

According to the petitioner, disputes have arisen with regard to the conduct of the partnership business. Her specific allegation is that respondent No. 1 and his wife [who is arrayed as respondent No. 2] have constituted a private limited company [respondent No. 3] to which they have diverted the business of the LLP. It is also contended that respondent No. 2 is purporting to conduct the business of the LLP which she is not authorised to, as an authorised representative.

¶19

Mr. Anukul Raj, learned counsel, appears on advance notice, on behalf of respondent No. 1. 5. There is some controversy between the parties as to whether respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are liable to be included as parties to any proposed arbitration proceedings. Without prejudice to their contentions in this aspect, Mr. A.K. Singla, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Anukul Raj, learned counsel for respondent No. 1, agree that the disputes between these two parties may be referred to arbitration in these proceedings itself, leaving it open to them to make all their respective contentions before the learned arbitrator, including on the question of whether respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are amenable to arbitration. They also request that the present petition be treated as an application under Section 17 of the Act before the learned arbitrator, who may take a decision on the interim measures required.

¶20

Having regard to the above, the petition is disposed of with the

¶21

Page 2 of 3

¶22

O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 215/2024

¶23

¶24

consent of learned counsel for the parties, by referring the disputes between the petitioner and respondent No. 1 under the LLP Agreement dated 11.04.2017 to the arbitration of Mr. LK. Gaur, former District Judge [Tel:-8800881765].

¶25

The arbitration will be held under the aegis of Delhi International Arbitration Centre, Shershah Road, New Delhi-110503 [“DIAC”], and will be governed by the Rules of DIAC, including as to the remuneration of the learned Arbitrator.

¶26

The learned Arbitrator is requested to furnish a declaration under Section 12 of the Act, prior to entering upon the reference. 9. The present petition will be treated as an application under Section 17 of the Act, before the learned Arbitrator. Respondent No. 1 may file a reply to the application within two weeks from today, or immediately upon the learned Arbitrator entering into the reference, whichever is later. 10. The parties may request the learned Arbitrator to take up the application under Section 17 of the Act as expeditiously as convenient. 11. It is made clear that this Court has not made any comment upon the merits of the matter, even on a prima facie basis. 12. The petition stands disposed of in these terms.

¶27

PRATEEK JALAN, J

¶28

JULY 5, 2024 ‘pv’/

¶29

O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 215/2024

¶30

Page 3 of 3

¶31

Jyoti Kataria v. Harkaran Singh Sachdev & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jyoti Kataria v. Harkaran Singh Sachdev & 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

Asf Buildtech Private Limited Vs Shapoorji Pallonji and Company Private Limited & Ors.

Ms Ghvh Pte Ltd. Vs Ms Roadgods Autogear Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

Rajinder Khanna@ Rajinder Pal Khanna and Ors. Vs Harsh Sehgal

Ishwar Prasad Vs M/S Indira Lodging Pvt. Ltd.

N.D.P.L. Vs Delhi Transco Ltd.

Airports Authority of India Vs Spv Consortium and Ors.