ARBAPPL/235/2024 of Praful R. Shah Vs M/s. Ashoka Rubber Products on 13 April 2026

ORDER:

Heard Mr. S.V. Rama Krishna, learned counsel for the applicant; and Ms. Manjari S. Ganu, learned counsel for respondent Nos'2 to 4 & 6'

2. The instant Arbitration Application under Section 11 (5) & (6) of the Arbitration and conciliation Act, 1996 (for short the 'Act') has been filedbytheapplicantseekingforappointmentofanArbitratorto ) - ,t --^-l:^^-+ ^. adjudicate upon the disputes'that have arisen between the applicant and the respondents in pursuance of the Partnership Deed dated 01'04' 1992' N

3. It is the case of the applicant that respondent No.2 along with respondent Nos.2 to 5 corlstitutad a pprtneiship firm in the name of M/s. AstLoka Rubber Products i.e. respondent No.l. The said partnership firm wa:i established to carry out business of manufacturing, dealing, commiss,ion agent, stockists, distributors, suppliers and exporters of latex foam, rubber bands, all types of gloves, dipped boots and allied rubber boots either in wholesale or retail. Accordingly, an initial partnership deed wils executed in writing on 1,0.02.1974 by respondent No.2, Mr. Jethalal P. Shah and Smt. Pan Bai and the firm was duty registered. The partnership firm was again reconstifuted when the applicant was admitted as one of the partqers by entering into a partnership deed dated 19.07.1975.

4. It is further case of the applicant that pursuant to the death of Mr. Jethalal P. Shah on 05. 10.2019, respondent No.6 claiming himself as a legatee under the will dated 06.09.2019, claimed the assets of Mr. Jethalal P. Shah and accordingly filed a civil suit i.e. o.S.No.69 of 2020 bt:fore the chief Judge, city Civit Court, Hyderabad. The applicant filed a detailed written statement opposing the said suit. The applicant 4/

";{ ' ",7 a\

had also filed o.s.No.l003 of 2020 before the vII Junior civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad seeking to declare himself, Mr' Jeetendar P' shah and Mr. shantital P. shah as the only legal heirs of late Mr. Jethalal

p. shah. However, the aforesaid two suits are pending consideration'

5. It was contended by the applicant that the business was not in operation since the year 2007; therefore, 'the assets and liabilities of the partnership firm are liable to be divided among the partners by dissolving the partnershiP firm.

6. The applicant submitted that he had sent a legal notice dated 27.06.2024 directing the respondents to come forward and distribute the assets and liabilities of the firm, failing which the applicant would invoke the arbitration clause in terms of the reconstituted partnership deed dated 01.04. 1992 to resolve the disputes by appointing Mr' v'S'R' Avadhani, Retired District Judge as the sole Arbitrator' However, the notice sent to respondent No.l was returned with an endorsement 'door lock' and the notice sent to respondent Nos.2 to 6 was served and they t, refused for appointment of Mr. V.S.R. Avadhani, Retired District Judge as the sole ltrbitrator.

7. On ttre contrary the respondents contended that the O.S.No.69 of 2020 filed seeking to declare respondent No.6 as the sole legatee is decreed by the Trial Court in favour of respondent No.6 vide judgment and decree dated 19.08.2025. Howeveq the respondents submitted that the O.S.No.1003 of 2020 filed seeking to declare the applicant and Mr. Jeetender P. Shah and respondent No.2 as the only legal heirs is still pending.

8. Acc,trding to the respondents, though the applicant sent a legal notice dal.ed 27.06.2024 stating the partnership firm would stand dissolved on receipt of notice by the respondents, however the respondent Nos.2 to 6 replied stating that in view of the reconstituted partnershirr deed dated 01.04.1992 is not at 'Will' the partnership firm can only dissolved by mutual consent of the tparties and not by appointme:nt of an Arbitrator. I I t t i I ! : I I I i I

.,.,--'ffi .1'\

9. Having heard the contentions put forth on either side and on perusal of records, some of the admitted factual matrix of the case are that:- (a) The respondent No.2 along with respondent Nos.2 to 5 constituted a partnership firm in the name of IWs. Ashoka Rubber Products; (b)The partnership firm was reconstituted again when the applicant was admitted as a partner;

(c) No business activities were carried out since the year 2007:.

(d) The applicant though legal notice directed the respondents to come forward and distribute the assets and liabilities of the firm within a week failing which he would invoke the arbitration clause as is mentioned in the reconstituted partnership deed dated 01.04.1992.

10. It would be relevant at this juncture to take note of the arbitration clause i.e. Clause No.14 reflected in the reconstituted partnership deed dated 01.04.1992. For ready reference, Clause No.14 is reproduced hereunder, viz., ,;I "Any dffirence which may arise between the partis or their representatives regarding the interpretation of this prcsents or regarding the rights and liabilities of any of the porttes arising \

hercunder or any olher matler or lhings concerning the firm or the aflairt thereof shatl be referred to arhitration and award of the arbitralor or arbilrator.s shall be binding upon all lhe parlies subjet:t lo the law of arbitralion that may be in force for time being. " A bare perusal of the aforesaid arbitration clause of the reconstitutetl partnership deed would make it clear that any dispute which has arisen between the parties to the agreement has to be resolved by way of arbitration and the award passed by the Arbitrator shall be binding upon all the parties to the agreement.

11. Furthermore, all the objections that the respondents have can be raised before the Arbitrator, which the Arbitrator is expected to take note of, and det:ide the same after hearing both the sides in accordance with law.

12. For all the aforesaid reasons, this Court is inclined to appoint an Arbitrator, who, in turn shall decide the grievances and the claims raised by the applicant. In the course of deliberation, leamed counsel for the parties have accepted the suggestion of Mr. D.Ravindra Sharma., Retired District Judge being appointed as an Arbitrator to adjudicate the claim I I

PageT ofl raised by the applicant. Accordingly, this Court appoints Mr. D.Ravindra sharma, Retired District Judge (Flat No.20l, vaishnavi Apartment, H.No.l3-10-95, New Gaddiannaram, Hyderabad - 500 060, Mobile No.9848790929) to act as an Arbitrator and to pass an appropriate award in terms of the provisions of the Act. The venue of the arbitration shall be decided mutually by the parties subject to the consultation and agreement of the learned Arbitrator. The fees of the learned Arbitrator shall also be decided mutually by the parties again in consultation and agreemeht with the learned Arbitrator and the arbitration proceedings shall be govemed in accordance with the provisions of the Act.

13. The instant Arbitration Application accordingly stands allowed.

14. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any, shall stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. { SD'. M. RAMANA KRISHNA JOINT REGISTRAR \

To, /TRUE COPYII SECTION OFFICER

1. Mr. D. Ravindra Sharma, Retired District Judge (Flat No.201, Vaishavi Apartment, H. No. 13-10-95, New Gaddiannaram, Hyderabad - 500060, Mobile No. 9848790929) (By Special Messenger) (Along with a Copy of affidavit and material papers)

2. One CC to Mr. S.V. Rama Krishna, Advocate [OPUC]

3. One CC to Ms. Manjari S. Ganu, Advocate IOPUC]

4. Two CD Copies N, i :, :i II tl,I I\T /t' A

I HIGH COURT DATED = 13104l,2A26

ORDER

ARBAPPIL.No,235 of 2A24 ALLOWING THE ARBITRATION APPLICATION \ L tt .J t S FiE t R

AP

* *