DEEPAK SHRIPAT MORE vs UDAYSINGH HARINARAYANSINGH RAJPUROHIT

Judgment text excerpt

ARBPl.40041.2025- FINAL.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ARBITRATION PETITION (L) NO.40041 OF 2025 Deepak Shripat More ....Petitioner Versus Udaysingh Harinarayansingh Rajpurohit & Ors. ...Respondents Mr. Karan Bhosale a/w. Neha Bhosale, Anuja Diwadkar, Harsh Sawant, Shivangi B. & Yashwant Singh i/b. NDB Law, for Petitioner. Mr. Anil D’souza i/b. Achala Hatode, Advocate for Respondent No.1. CORAM : SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, J. DATE : May 4, 2026 JUDGEMENT: Context and Factual Background: 1. Two key issues fall for consideration in this Petition filed under Section 37(2)(a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ( “the Act”) :- A] Whether denial of a prayer for impleading a third party who is presented as a veritable party is it all appealable; and B] Whether in the facts of the case, the Impugned Order dated September 4, 2025 (“Impugned Order”), denying such prayer is perverse and deserves any interference? Page 1 of 19 Digitally signed by AARTI May 4, 2026 AARTI GAJANAN GAJANAN PALKAR PALKAR Date: 2026.05.18 11:56:35 +0530 ARBPl.40041.2025- FINAL.doc 2. The factual matrix falls in a rather narrow compass. The parties are in arbitration proceedings since December 24, 2012 (the invocation notice was issued on this date). The disputes and differences relate to a Partnership Firm titled M/s Shree Estate Ventures ( “Shree”), which was formed vide a Partnership Deed dated May 21, 2004, between the Petitioner, Deepak Shripat More (“More”), who is the claimant in the arbitration, and Respondent No.1, Udaysingh Harinarayansingh Rajpurohit (“Rajpurohit”). Shree was formed in and around the year 2004 for the purposes of building and developing properties. Shree started developing a property in Bhayander. 3. The Statement of Cl