The court emphasizes that mere allegations of fraud do not invalidate arbitration agreements unless the nature of fraud is serious and complicated.

Order :

ARUN MONGA, J.

1. Application herein is under section 11 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 with the prayer to appoint a sole arbitrator to decide/adjudicate upon the dispute between the parties arising out of an agreement dated 12.08.2019 (Annex.2).

2. Case set up in application is that the applicant and the Non- Applicants jointly established a Limited Liability Partnership (LLP) under the name M/s Manifest Ventures LLP for the purpose of land development and related real estate activities. The LLP was duly incorporated on 06.08.2019, under the provisions of the Limited Liability Partnership Act, 2005. As per the LLP Agreement, the Applicant held a 99% ownership stake and contributed the majority of the capital. The LLP Agreement clearly outlined the respective rights, obligations, and capital contributions of the partners, along with procedures governing resignation, removal, and distribution of profits.

2.1. In furtherance of the LLP’s business objectives, the partners identified and agreed to acquire a key property located at Plot No.396, Main "C" Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur, measuring 6610.99 square feet, valued at approximately ₹11 crores. Initially, the Applicant contributed a sum of Rs.1.16 crores via RTGS transfers, as reflected in the registered sale deed dated 27.09.2019. However, during the COVID-19 pandemic, on 28.04.2021, Non-Applicant No.3 allegedly forged documents and unlawfully removed the Applicant from the LLP, in blatant violation of the procedure prescribed in the LLP Agreement. Simultaneously, a new partner was inducted into the LLP. The Applicant contends that this act was fraudulent and deliberately intended to deprive him of his rightful share in the LLP’s assets, profits, and management.

2.2. As a result, disputes have arisen between the parties concerning the Applicant’s wrongful removal, capital contributions, entitlement to profits, and his overall rights and interests in the LLP.

2.3. The Applicant has already filed an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking interim relief, which is pending adjudication before the learned Commercial Court, Jodhpur Metropolitan.

2.4. Since, despite request, the non-applicants did not cooperate in the mutual process of appointing an arbitrator, therefore, the Applicant also sent a legal notice on 23.12.2023 (Annex.5). Hence, the applicant is constrained to approach this Court under Section 11 (6) of the Act, seeking appointment of an arbitrator to ensure that the disputes is resolved in accordance with the arbitration clause as envisaged in the LLP Agreement.

3. Despite being duly served, no one has appeared on behalf of the respondent, nor has any response to the instant application been filed. However, the respondents, in their reply to the notice, have stated that the amount claimed by the petitioner as investment was never advanced by him, except for a nominal sum of Rs.1,000/- as capital in Manifest Ventures LLP. The petitioner was never involved in the operation of Plot No. 396, Sardarpura C Road. The respondent Kishan Kushlani, an NRI residing in Dubai, had made the petitioner a partner only to meet certain legal formalities, with the entire investment actually remitted by Kishan Kushlani. Subsequently, Kishan Kushlani introduced new partners and asked the petitioner to retire from the LLP. The petitioner had agreed to do so and also executed a retirement deed dated 28.04.2021. This deed was duly submitted to the bank, which approved it and removed the petitioner’s name from the LLP’s bank account. The petitioner had full knowledge of his retirement. Thus, he had no further involvement with the property. Allegations leveled by him are vague and unsubstantiated. Since the partnership was dissolved through the retirement deed, there is no question of breach of the agreement dated 12.08.2019. Therefore, no case is made out to seek appointment of an arbitrator. The petitioner in fact concealed the execution of