Mr Ruzbeh D Framjee Vs Mrs Beena Murali

MR RUZBEH D FRAMJEE S/O DINSHAW FRAMJEE, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/AT V V RESIDENCY, C7, 3^RD FLOOR, 5^TH CROSS, MALLESPALYA, KAGGADASAPURA, KARANTAKA 560093.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

(BY SRI. HIRAN KRISHNASWAMY., ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

MRS BEENA MURALI

¶16

D/O MURALEEDARAN KURUMATH, MAJOR, R/AT KURUMATH HOUSE, KARALAM, THRISSUR, KERELA 690711.

¶17

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:10568 CMP No. 329 of 2025

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

2. LE COLLECTIFF

¶20

HAVING REGISTERED OFFICE AT, NO. 3, ADAR, 7^TH CROSS, 10^TH MAIN ROAD, MARUTHI NAGAR, MALLESHPALYA, NEW THIPPASANDRA POST, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA 560075. ALSO AT, NO. 38/VI, MAMPILY HOUSE, KURIANS ROAD, KOCHI ERNAKULAM, KERELA 682025.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. LAKSHMIKANTH K., ADVOCATE FOR R1

¶23

R2 SERVED)

¶24

THIS CMP IS FILSED UNDER SECTION 11(5) OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996., PRAYING TO (a) APPOINT A SOLE ARBITRATOR WITH DIRECTION TO ENTER REFERENCE IN TERMS OF CLAUSE 38 OF THE ARBITRATION AGREEMENT DATED 6.06.2024 (ANNEXURE - A) AND AS PER THE ARBITRATION NOTICE DATED 19.02.2025 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER (ANNEXURE - E) AND ADJUDICATE THE DISPUTE BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE RESPONDENT (b) APPOINT EITHER ARBITRATION CENTRE - BENGALURU OR SUCH OTHER INSTITUTION AS THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY BE DEEM FIT AS THE ARBITRAL INSTITUTION TO CONDUCT THE SAID ARBITRATION PROCEEDING.

¶25

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

¶27

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:10568 CMP No. 329 of 2025

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

ORAL ORDER

¶30

This civil miscellaneous petition is filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘Act’ for short) to appoint the Sole Arbitrator for resolving the disputes between the parties to the petition in terms of clause 38 of the limited liability partnership agreement dated 06.06.2024 (‘LLP agreement’ for short) at Annexure-A as per the provisions of the Act and the Rules.

¶31

Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this petition are as follows:

¶32

2.1. The petitioner and respondent No.1 executed an agreement dated 10.05.2024 wherein the petitioner has paid Rs.10,00,000/- to respondent No.1 for being a partner of respondent No.2. On 06.06.2024, the petitioner and the respondent No.1 executed the LLP agreement to carry on the business of investments, advisory services and other management activities. Further, the petitioner gave consent to act as designated partner in respondent No.2. On 11.11.2024, the petitioner issued a legal notice

¶33

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:10568 CMP No. 329 of 2025

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

to respondent No.1 for winding up of LLP, also to stop using the petitioner name as signatory. On 14.1.2024, the petitioner again issued a notice to respondent No.1 for repayment of Rs.10,00,000/-. The petitioner further issued an arbitration notice dated 19.02.2025 invoking the arbitration clause. The respondent replied to the said notice on 01.03.2025, however not concurring in appointing the Arbitrator. Hence, this petition.

¶36

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents.

¶37

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, pursuant to the agreement at Annexure A having been entered into by the parties to the petition, the arbitral dispute arose and the petition has invoked the arbitration clause by issuing an arbitration notice under Section 21 of the Act. The agreement contains the arbitration clause and

¶38

the dispute has to be resolved through arbitration. Accordingly, on these grounds, prays to allow the petition.

¶39

NC: 2026:KHC:10568 CMP No. 329 of 2025

¶40

5 -

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

Per contra , learned counsel for the respondent

¶43

submits no objection to allow the petition by appointing the Sole Arbitrator.

¶44

Perused the records and considered the

¶45

submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.

¶46

The point that would arise for consideration is

¶47

as follows:

¶48

Whether the petitioner had made out aground to refer the dispute to the arbitration in terms of clause 38 of the LLP agreement at Annexure A as per the provisions of the Act and the Rules?

¶49

It is undisputed that, on 06.06.2024, the petitioner and the respondent No.1 executed the LLP agreement to carry on the business of investments, advisory services and other management activities. On 11.11.2024, the petitioner issued a legal notice to respondent No.1 for winding up of LLP. The petitioner further issued an arbitration notice dated 19.02.2025

¶50

6 -

¶51

NC: 2026:KHC:10568 CMP No. 329 of 2025

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

invoking the arbitration clause. The respondent replied to the said notice on 01.03.2025, however not concurring in appointing the Arbitrator.

¶54

I have perused the arbitration clause at clause 38 of the limited liability partnership agreement dated 06.06.2024 which reads as follows:

¶55

“ 38 RESOLUTION OF DISPUTES

¶56

38.1 All disputes between the partners or between any Partner and the LLP arising out of the Limited Liability Partnership or this Agreement which cannot be resolved in terms of this Agreement and all disputes arising out of or in connection with the interpretation of this Agreement or any clause or provision contained herein or the respective rights, duties or liabilities of the partners hereunder, which cannot be resolved by mutual discussions, shall be referred to arbitration as the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 or any statutory amendment or re-enactment thereto. The venue of the arbitration proceedings shall be Mumbai and the proceedings shall be in English.”

¶57

7 -

¶58

NC: 2026:KHC:10568 CMP No. 329 of 2025

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

From the perusal of aforementioned arbitration clause, it is evident that, any dispute arising out of the LLP agreement shall be resolved through arbitration. Admittedly, there is an arbitration clause and the dispute arose between the parties to the petition which is arbitral in nature and the petitioner has invoked the arbitration

¶61

clause by issuing an arbitration notice dated 19.02.2025

¶62

Learned counsel for the respondent submits no objection to appoint the Sole Arbitrator.

¶63

In view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondent and for the foregoing discussion, the petitioner has made out a ground to refer the dispute to the arbitration. Accordingly, I answer the point in the affirmative.

¶64

In the result, the following:

¶65

ORDER

¶66

A. The CMP is allowed .

¶67

8 -

¶68

NC: 2026:KHC:10568 CMP No. 329 of 2025

¶69

HC-KAR

¶70

B. Sri. Nabirasul S.Mamadapur , learned Retired District Judge is appointed as the Arbitrator to resolve the arbitral disputes between the parties to the petition in terms of clause 38 of the limited liability partnership agreement dated 06.06.2024 as per the provisions of the Act and the Rules.

¶71

C. The Registry is directed to communicate this order to the learned Arbitrator, and the Director of the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre, Bengaluru;

¶72

D. All the contentions of the parties are kept open.

¶73

E. The Registry is directed to return the original/certified copies of the documents, if any, after retaining the photocopies of the same.

¶74

F. Pending IA(s), if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly.

¶75

Sd/(ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE

¶76

PA [ONLINE] CT:KHV

¶77

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 54

Mr Ruzbeh D Framjee v. Mrs Beena Murali

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Ruzbeh D Framjee v. Mrs Beena Murali

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

Similar cases

Mr.Dilip Kumar a Shah Vs Union of India

Yashwanth Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Gulab Vs Sri C H Doddaiah

Maharashtra Resco Rooftop Solar Private Limited Vs Bangalore University

M/S Prodapt Solutions Private Limited Vs M/S Concept Classic Converge Private Limited

Arvind Youths Brands Private Limited Vs Bansal Trading Co.