DARSHAN MAHENDRA NIBJYA vs JAYANTILAL TARACHAND OSWAL

Judgment text excerpt

17-ARBP-53-2025 corrected.docx IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Digitally signed by SHRADDHA SHRADDHA KAMLESH ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 53 OF 2025 KAMLESH TALEKAR TALEKAR Date: 2025.03.11 20:46:08 +0530 DARSHAN MAHENDRA NIBJYA ….Petitioner Versus JAYANTILAL TARACHAND OSWAL & Ors. ….Respondents Mr. Sanket Bora a/w. Vidhi Punmiya, Amiya R. Das, and Unnatii Thakkar i/b SPCM Legal, for Petitioner. Mr. Dhruva Gandhi i/b Ms. Prakruti Joshi, for Respondent No. 2. CORAM : SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, J. Date : February 24, 2025 Oral Judgement: 1. This is a Petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“the Act”), which has been filed in rather piquant circumstances. 2. By an order dated August 7, 2023, in view of the two arbitrators nominated by the Petitioner and Respondent No.1 not being able to agree upon a presiding arbitrator, a Learned Single Judge of this Court was pleased to appoint a Retired Judge of this Court as a presiding arbitrator. The order passed under Section 11 of the Act was challenged by Respondent No. 1 before the Supreme Court, which eventually, by an order dated April 8, 2024, Page 1 of 7 February 24, 2025 Shraddha * Judgement is corrected as per Order dated March 3, 2025 17-ARBP-53-2025 corrected.docx dismissed the challenge stating that there was no reason to interfere, since eminently, the arbitration agreement had been appropriately considered by the Learned Single Judge. 3. Respondent No. 2 is now a partner of the firm, in which the Petitioner was once upon a time, a partner. In fact, the disputes and differences between the parties centre around the exit of the Petitioner from the same firm. Two partnership deeds, identical in their terms, varying only in date form part of the record. The ar