H.R.T. Saldanha Vs Vernon X. Saldanha

NIHAL HAROLD SALDANHA, S/O. H.R.T. SALDANHA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS RESIDING AT 1153, TARTAN LANE, COMMERCE TOWNSHIP, MI 48390, U.S.A., REP. BY HIS G.P.A HOLDER H.R.T. SALDANHA

¶12

VIVEK MARIO SALDANHA, S/O H.R.T. SALDANHA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, RESIDING AT 167 EAST, 67 STREET, APARTMENT #9E, NEW YORK, NY 10065, U.S.A.,

¶13

NC: 2025:KHC:48331 CMP No. 82 of 2015

¶14

2 -

¶15

HC-KAR

¶16

REP. BY HIS GPA HOLDER H.R.T. SALDANHA.

¶17

…PETITIONERS

¶18

(BY SRI. K.ANANDARAMA, ADVOCATE)

¶19

AND:

¶20

VERNON X. SALDANHA,

¶21

S/O LATE A.J.F.X. SALDANHA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/AT, BEAULIEU, FALNIR ROAD, KANKANADY P.O. MANGALORE - 575 002.

¶22

RITA SALDANHA,

¶23

D/O. LATE J.G.X. SALDANHA AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS R/AT. 304 BEAULIEU APARTMENTS, VAS LANE, FALNIR,

¶24

MANGALORE - 575 002.

¶25

¶26

MARGARET D'SILVA (NEE SALDANHA),

¶27

W/O. CHRISTOPHER L.N. D'SILVA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, R/AT. 301 BEAULIEU APARTMENTS, VAS LANE, FALNIR,

¶28

MANGALORE - 575 002.

¶29

ROSE THOMMY (NEE SALDANHA),

¶30

W/O. JEREMY THOMMY

¶31

AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/AT. 301 BEAULIEU APARTMENTS, VAS LANE, FALNIR, MANGALORE - 575 002 .

¶32

MAY PAULOSE (NEE SALDANHA), (SINCE DECEASED BY HER LRs) 5(A) TARUN PAUL PAULOSE,

¶33

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:48331 CMP No. 82 of 2015

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

TARUN PAUL PAULOSE, S/O. ABRAHAM J. PAULOSE AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/AT. A3 SAGAR DARSHAN 308, CARTER ROAD, KHAR DANDA, MUMBAI - 400 052 .

¶36

5(B) TARA SARAH PAULOSE, W/O. MARTIN KILMARTIN AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/AT. A3 SAGAR DARSHAN 308, CARTER ROAD, KHAR DANDA, MUMBAI - 400 052.

¶37

5 (C) SUJAY JOSEPH PAULOSE , S/O. ABRAHAM J. PAULOSE AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, R/AT. A3 SAGAR DARSHAN 308, CARTER ROAD, KHAR DANDA, MUMBAI - 400 052 .

¶38

…RESPONDENTS

¶39

(BY SRI. SANATH KUMAR SHETTY.K., ADV. FOR R1; SRI. RANJAN KUMAR.K., ADV. FOR R2 TO R5(c))

¶40

THIS CIVIL MISC. PETITION IS FILED UNDER SEC.11(5, 6) OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT 1996, PRAYING TO APPOINT A SOLE ARBITRATOR FOR RESOLUTION OF THE DISPUTES BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE RESPONDENTS ARISING OUT OF AND CONSEQUENT TO THE PARTNERSHIP DEED DATED: 01/08/1995 AND GRANT SUCH FURTHER RELIEFS AS THIS HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶41

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

¶42

4 -

¶43

NC: 2025:KHC:48331 CMP No. 82 of 2015

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶46

ORAL ORDER

¶47

The petitioners are before this Court seeking for the

¶48

following reliefs:

¶49

"WHEREFORE the petitioner respectfully prays that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to appoint a sole arbitrator for resolution of the disputes between the petitioner and the respondents arising out of and consequent to the partnership deed dated 01.08.1995 and grant such further reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case to meet the ends of justice and equity."

¶50

A partnership deed was entered into between the petitioners, respondent No.1 and one Smt. Maisie Saldanha wife of late J.G.X. Saldanha who having expired, the dispute arose between the parties as regards the dissolution of the partnership. The Deed of Partnership is stated to be governed by an arbitration clause i.e., in terms of Clause-22 of the Deed at page-17, which is reproduced herein under for easy reference:

¶51

"22. ALL DISPUTES arising between the partners or their legal representatives about the interpretation of this Deed or their rights and liabilities thereunder or in relation to any other matters whatsoever touching the partnership affairs

¶52

5 -

¶53

NC: 2025:KHC:48331 CMP No. 82 of 2015

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

shall be decided by an Arbitration as provided by the Indian Arbitration Act."

¶56

The petitioners have issued notice invoking the arbitration clause and nominating its Arbitrator on 11.03.2015. There being no concurrence with the appointment of an Arbitrator, the petitioners have approached this Court. When the matter was taken up before this Court on earlier occasion, all the parties had submitted that the matter could be referred to mediation and as such vide order dated 15.12.2016, the matter was referred to mediation and it was adjourned on several occasions.

¶57

When it was taken up for hearing on 14.03.2019, all the counsels had submitted that parties are still in the process of settling the dispute by negotiation. In that view of the matter, taking note of the submissions made, the petition was disposed of with liberty to seek revival of the petition in case the dispute is not settled by negotiation.

¶58

On account of the dispute not being settled, the petitioners filed an application for revival of the petition in I.A.No.1/2025, which came to be allowed vide order

¶59

6 -

¶60

NC: 2025:KHC:48331 CMP No. 82 of 2015

¶61

HC-KAR

¶62

dated 14.11.2025. This being having taken on record that this Court reserved liberty to the petitioners to revive the matter and on revival the above petition being restored to file was taken up for hearing today.

¶63

Sri. Sanath Kumar Shetty.K., learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that respondent No.1 is still ready to settle the matter. Similar submission is made by the counsel for the petitioners.

¶64

Learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 5(c) submits that he has no objection for any settlement to be arrived at.

¶65

The other submission made by Sri. Sanath Kumar Shetty, learned counsel for respondent No.1 is that there is a dispute as regards the legal heirs of Smt.Maisie Saldanha, one of the partner who has expired and as such the matter cannot be referred to arbitration. The Will executed by her also being in dispute.

¶66

I am of the considered opinion that the dispute as regards the Will of Smt.Maisie Saldanha cannot be a ground not to refer the matter to arbitration as regards

¶67

7 -

¶68

NC: 2025:KHC:48331 CMP No. 82 of 2015

¶69

HC-KAR

¶70

the dispute between the partners under a Deed of Partnership. If at all there is a dispute as regards to legal heirs of Smt.Maisie Saldanha that is inter se between the legal heirs, the share of Smt.Maisie Saldanha being clearly identified in the Deed of Partnership, the said share could be allotted to her and accounts finalised by the Arbitrator once appointed and that share could be distributed among the successful legal heirs of Smt.Maisie Saldanha on the finality being arrived at as regards the Will and the legal heirs.

¶71

The same cannot be a ground to postpone the adjudication of the dispute between the other partners under the Deed of Partnership dated 01.08.1995.

¶72

At this stage, all the counsels submit that they will try to make one more attempt for settlement through mediation and in the event of mediation fails, the matter could be referred to arbitration. In that view of the matter, I pass the following:

¶73

ORDER

¶74

(i) The Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed ;

¶75

8 -

¶76

NC: 2025:KHC:48331 CMP No. 82 of 2015

¶77

HC-KAR

¶78

(ii) The matter is referred to Karnataka Mediation Centre for mediation.

¶79

(iii) The Director, Karnataka Mediation Centre is directed to appoint a suitable mediator to try and mediate the dispute between the parties.

¶80

(iv) Since order is passed in the presence of all the counsels, the respective parties shall appear before the Director, Karnataka Mediation Centre without requirement of any further notice at 2:30 P.M., on 08.12.2025 .

¶81

(v) If mediation is unsuccessful in the time prescribed under the mediation rules, the Director of Karnataka Mediation Centre is directed to forward the file and this order to the Director of Bangalore Arbitration Conciliation Centre.

¶82

(vi) In the event of mediation proceedings not being successful, Sri. Justice Ramachandra D. Huddar, a former Judge of this Court is appointed as a Sole Arbitrator to arbitrate the dispute between the parties under the aegis of the Arbitration Centre attached to this Court.

¶83

NC: 2025:KHC:48331 CMP No. 82 of 2015

¶84

9 -

¶85

HC-KAR

¶86

(vii) Registry is directed to return the original and/or certified copies, if produced, to the respective parties who have produced it/them by following due procedure.

¶87

SD/(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE

¶88

SMJ

¶89

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12

H.R.T. Saldanha v. Vernon X. Saldanha

Case brief

What is this about?

H.R.T. Saldanha v. Vernon X. Saldanha

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

Udayashankar H M Vs the Commissioner

Odwen Technologies Private Limited Vs U G Enterprises

Icici Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd., Vs Chayadevi

The Kannada Sahitya Parishattu Vs the Secretary

Prof. Jayaprakash Gowda. B Vs the State of Karnataka

Psbb Learning Leadership Academy Vs Mrs.Barnali Rout