Allowed

Taranjeet Singh Sahni S/O Pritpal Singh Sahni v. Vijay Kumar Bhalodia S/O Laxman Bhai

Rajasthan HC26 May 2023ARBAP/49/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the arbitration application filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 by the applicant against the respondent despite the respondent's counsel pleading no instructions. The court appointed a former judge as a sole arbitrator to adjudicate the partnership dispute based on the terms of the partnership deed.

What did the court decide?

Appointment of Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satish Kumar Sharma as a sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the parties.

Taranjeet Singh Sahni S/O Pritpal Singh Sahni Vs Vijay Kumar… — Arbitration | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023/RJJP/012130]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Arbitration Application No. 49/2022

¶4

Taranjeet Singh Sahni S/o Pritpal Singh Sahni, Aged About 45 Years, R/o 19-A, New Colony, Gumanpura Kota-324007.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Vijay Kumar Bhalodia S/o Laxman Bhai, R/o 255-A, Namrata Awas Colony, Bajrang Nagar, Kota 324001.

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Abhishek Bhardwaj For Respondent(s) : Mr.Tushar Sharma for Mr.Pradeep Sharma

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR GAUR

¶11

Order

¶12

26/05/2023

¶13

Learned counsel – Mr.Tushar Sharma, appearing on behalf of learned counsel for the respondent – Mr.Pradeep Sharma, submits that learned counsel – Mr.Pradeep Sharma has no instructions to appear in this matter and as such, he pleads no instructions.

¶14

Learned counsel for the respondent also submits that the present matter may now be proceeded by this Court, as per law.

¶15

Heard learned counsel for the applicant.

¶16

This Court finds that the present arbitration application has been filed by the applicant under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short “the Act of 1996”) for appointment of an Arbitrator in terms of Clause 13 of the Partnership Deed dated 03^rd February, 2021, entered between the applicant and the respondent.

[2023/RJJP/012130]

[ARBAP-49/2022]

(2 of 3)

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant and the respondent had entered into a partnership for retail trading, sale of service and agency business and as such, they had partnership of 50% share of each.

¶21

Learned counsel submits that the applicant and the respondent executed another partnership agreement dated 20^th August, 2021 and again they decided to provide the scope of business to be carried out as per the liabilities and obligations, which were already defined.

¶22

Learned counsel submits that the applicant invested substantial amount for starting the business and as per the terms of the partnership deed, the respondent was under an obligation to perform his part.

¶23

Learned counsel submits that when the applicant did not receive any information from the respondent and further when the respondent did not perform his part, as such, the applicant was constrained to send a notice dated 07^th January, 2022 to resolve the dispute and further for appointment of an Arbitrator as per the terms of the partnership deed.

¶24

Learned counsel submits that no reply to the notice, sent by the applicant, was given and as such, this Court is required to exercise its power for appointment of an Arbitrator.

¶25

I have gone through the partnership deed filed as Annexure – 1 and the partnership agreement dated 20^th August, 2021 and find that the parties had clearly provided that in case, any dispute or difference, relating to the partnership affairs, was to be referred to the Arbitrator under the provisions of the Act of 1996.

[2023/RJJP/012130]

[ARBAP-49/2022]

(3 of 3)

This Court finds that the respondent, at one point of time after service of notice, had engaged a counsel but later on, his counsel has pleaded no instructions and as such, this Court has to decide the application based on the averments made by the applicant.

¶30

This Court, accordingly, allows the present arbitration applications filed by the applicant, while exercising the power conferred under Section 11 (5) read with Section 11(6) of the Act of 1996, appoints Hon’ble Mr.Justice Satish Kumar Sharma (Former Judge), 1 - Rail Nagar East, Bhagwan Path, Nirwan Nagar Ke pas, Jaipur, as a sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the parties. The payment of cost of arbitration proceedings and arbitration fee shall be made as per the 4^th Schedule appended to the Act of 1996.

¶31

The intimation of appointment, as aforesaid, may be given by the counsel for the parties as well as by the Registry to Hon’ble Mr.Justice Satish Kumar Sharma (Former Judge), 1 - Rail Nagar East, Bhagwan Path, Nirwan Nagar Ke pas, Jaipur.

¶32

(ASHOK KUMAR GAUR),J

¶33

Preeti Asopa /28

Taranjeet Singh Sahni S/O Pritpal Singh Sahni v. Vijay Kumar Bhalodia S/O Laxman Bhai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Taranjeet Singh Sahni S/O Pritpal Singh Sahni v. Vijay Kumar Bhalodia S/O Laxman Bhai

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

M/S Prl Projects and Infrastructure Ltd. Vs State of Rajasthan through Chief Engineer (Nh) Public Works Department (P.W.D. )

M/S Prl Projects and Infrastruture Ltd. Vs State of Rajasthan through Chief Engineer, (Nh)

Jaipur Centre Developers Private Limited Vs M/S Pace Tel Systems Pvt. Ltd.

Administrator Vs Dau Dayal Gupta Son of Shri Babu Lal Gupta

Jaipur Centre Devlopers Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Siddhi Vinayak Colonizers

Anil Singhal S/O Shri Om Prakash Singhal Vs Vishal Bahl S/O Shri Nardeep Bahl