IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SUNITA AGARWAL, J.
M/s Sai Polyplast – Appellant
Versus
Vikas Raj Chhajer – Respondents
R/Petn. Under Arbitration Act No. 146 of 2019 With R/Petn. Under Arbitration Act No. 148 of 2019
Decided on : 16-02-2024
The partnership firm M/s. Om Polyplast sought the appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The dispute arose from allegations of fraud and misappropriation of funds by one partner, leading to multiple litigations and settlement talks. The respondent argued that the dispute was non-arbitrable due to criminal proceedings and insufficiently stamped partnership deed. The court analyzed various precedents and held that the dispute was arbitrable as the allegations of fraud were inter se and had no public implications. The court appointed a sole arbitrator to resolve the disputes between the parties.
JUDGMENT :
1. In these set of applications seeking for appointment of Arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short as “the Act’1996”), the parties are same and issues are interconnected and common and, as such, they have been heard and are being decided by this common judgment.
2. The partnership firm M/s. Om Polyplast (Applicant No.1 in Arbitration Petition No.148 of 2019) came into being vide partnership deed dated 01.04.2012, wherein Pradeep Gaurishankar Trivedi (Applicant No.2), Vikas Raj Chhajer( the respondent) and one Mr. Manoj N.Pandya entered into a partnership. On 01.04.2014, Mr. Manoj N. Pandya had retired from partnership vide a retirement deed. The respondents continued with partnership business of M/s. Om Polyplast of manufacturing PVC bags. Later, the respondent, namely Vikas Raj Chhajer intended to retire from partnership firm and, as such, the partnership-cum-retirement deed was executed on 19.03.2018 between the applicant and Vikas Raj Chhajer. It is stated that vide the said deed, a new partnership firm M/s. Sai Polyplast was created by three erstwhile partners, namely, Pradeep Gaurishankar Trivedi (Applicant No.2) and Vikas Raj Chhajer (respondent herein) and Manoj N. Pandya, who again retired from the partnership firm M/s. Sai Polyplast vide retirement deed dated 01.04.2018. The partnership deed dated 01.04.2018 of creation of M/s. Sai Polyplast contains Arbitration Clause in Clause No.23 thereof. M/s. Sai Polyplast continued with the similar business of manufacturing and trading of PVC as that of M/s. Om Polyplast, the erstwhile partnership firm.
3. It is contended in the petition that during the tenure as partner of two partnership firms respondent, namely Vikas Raj Chhajer had entered into mala fide transactions from the funds of the partnership firm and purchased many articles for his personal use for which bills were paid through the accounts of the partnership firm. The respondent was handling and managing the work of the partnership firm as the areas of operation of two partnership firms, namely M/s. Om Polyplast and M/s.Sai Polyplast were different; M/s. Om Polyplast was based at Vapi, whereas M/s. Sai Polyplast was in Surat. It is contended that the respondent had defied the deed and trust of the applicant herein and deliberately defaulted to comply with the responsibility, obligations and duty entrusted as a partner. While retiring from M/s. Om Polyplast and entering in M/s. Sai Polyplast, the respondent had misrepresented on factual aspects. During the audit of the erstwhile firm M/s. Om Polyplast, from which the respondent had retired, it was revealed that huge fraud had been played by the respondent. The notice of termination of respondent as a partner of the firm was given on 16.10.2018. The said notice was not refused by the respondent. In the meantime, forensic audit report of M/s. Om Polyplast for the period from April, 2014 to March, 2018 was submitted on 27.03.2019. It came to the knowledge of the applicant that huge amount of funds of the partnership firms, namely M/s. Om Polyplast and M/s. Sai Polyplast were misappropriated by the respondent and, hence, criminal proceedings on the allegation of cheating and fraud were initiated by the applicant against the respondent and his father-in-law, namely Mr. Mool Chand Jain, who was instrumental in the act of misappropriation. The father-in-law of the respondent, on the other hand, had filed false complaints against the applicant herein.
4. A legal notice dated 30.05.2019 was sent by the respondent with respect to payment of dues, which was replied by the applicant vide letter dated 10.07.2019. In the forensic audit report of M/s. Sai Polyplast for the period from April, 2018 to June, 2018 dated 27.03.2019, the misappropriation of the aforesaid partnership firm was reported.
5. Multiple litigations were instituted by both the parties. Settlement talks were held since July, 2019, however, nothing could be mater
A. Ayyasamy vs. A. Paramasivam and others
Avital Post Studioz Limited and others vs. HSBC PI Holdings (Mauritius) Limited
Afcons Infrastructure Ltd and others vs. Cherian Varkey Construction Co.(P) Ltd and others
Booz Allen Hamilton Inc. v. SBI Home Finance Ltd & Ors
P. Swaroopa Rani vs M.Hari Narayan
Rashid Raza vs. Sadaf Akhtar (2019) 8 SCC 710
Kvaerner Cementation India Limited vs. Bajranglal Agarwal and another
World Sport Group (Mauritius) Limited vs. MSM Satellite (Singapore) Pte. Limited
The court held that allegations of fraud and misappropriation of funds, when inter se and with no public implications, are arbitrable under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The court affirmed that objections regarding non-arbitrability of disputes are not to be considered at the pre-referral stage under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The court established that serious allegations of criminality do not automatically render partnership disputes non-arbitrable unless they permeate the entire arbitration agreement.
Mere allegations of fraud do not inherently preclude arbitration unless they raise complex issues requiring a full trial; straightforward financial disputes remain arbitrable under the Arbitration an....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that serious allegations of fraud and the pending criminal case against a party may make it improper to refer disputes to arbitration, leading to t....
The grounds of fraud and forgery alleged in the plaint do not make out any case which would prevent the matter from being decided by an Arbitral Tribunal. The Trial Court and the Appellate Court acte....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.