1

arbap 149-21 grp.doc

Prajakta/Vidya

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

ARBITRATION APPLICATION NO. 149 OF 2021

WITH

COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 410 OF 2021

Priya Rishi Bhuta & Anr.

…Applicants/Petitioners

V/s.

Vardhaman Engineers and Builders & Ors.... Respondents

WITH

COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 412 OF 2021

WITH

ARBITRATION APPLICATION NO. 245 OF 2021

WITH

ARBITRATION APPLICATION NO. 246 OF 2021

Priya Rishi Bhuta & Anr.

… Petitioners

V/s.

Vardhaman Land Development Corporation & Ors.... Respondents

WITH

COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 605 OF 2021

Priya Rishi Bhuta & Anr.

… Petitioners

V/s.

Pioneer Housing & Ors.

... Respondents

WITH

COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION PETITION (L) NO. 15937 OF 2021

WITH

ARBITRATION APPLICATION NO. 310 OF 2021

Priya Rishi Bhuta & Anr.

… Petitioners

V/s.

Pioneer Construction and Consultants & Ors.

... Respondents

Mr. Sanjay Jain a/w. Mr. Nishant Sasidharan, Mr. Ashvin Bhalekar, Mr.

Ashwin Bhadang, Ms. Shruti Lakhani and Ms. Khushbu Shah i/b. Dipti

Shah for Applicants/Petitioners.

Mr. Mayur Khandeparkar with Mr. Rajesh A. Revankar i/b. A.G.

Revankar & Co. for respondent nos. 1, 5 to 10.

Mr. Ankit Lohia with Mr. Chetan Yadav and Mr. Samarth Patel i/b. R. V. &

PRAJAKTA

SAGAR

VARTAK

Digitally

signed by

PRAJAKTA

SAGAR

VARTAK

Date:

2022.06.06

17:25:59

+0530

2

arbap 149-21 grp.doc

Co. for Respondent Nos.2 & 3.

CORAM :G.S. KULKARNI, J.

RESERVED ON : 12 APRIL 2022.

PRONOUNCED ON : 6 JUNE 2022

JUDGMENT:

1.

These are four applications filed under Section 11 of the

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, “the Act”) whereby the

applicants, who claim to be the daughters of deceased Amritlal Jain,

who was a Partner in the partnership firm - respondent no.1 in each of

these applications, are before the Court praying that the disputes and

differences between the applicants and the respondents as arising under

these partnership deeds be referred to arbitration.

2.

The applicants are invoking the arbitration agreement as

contained in each of the partnership deed. The facts in relation to all

these applications are common, except that respondent no.1-partnership

firm in each of these applications is different. Also the arbitration clause

as contained in each of the partnership deed(s) is similar. The

arbitration agreement as contained in clause 19 reads thus:-

“19. During the continuance of the partnership or at any time

afterwards, if any difference arises among the parties hereto or the

executors or administrators or their heirs such difference shall be

forthwith referred to an arbitrator or arbitrators as appointed by

partners. The decision of arbitrator or arbitrators will be final and

binding on all the parties hereto and shall be deemed to an arbitration

in accordance with and subject to the provisions of the Indian

Arbitration Act, 1940 (X of 1940) and Statutory modification or re-

enactment thereof for the time being in force.”

3

arbap 149-21 grp.doc

3.

For convenience, the facts pertaining to Arbitration Application

No. 149 of 2021 are being referred. Respondent no.1 is the partnership

firm of which the applicants claim to have interest as per clause 17 of

the Partnership Deed dated 12 March, 2012. Respondent nos.2 and 3

are existing partners. Respondent no.4 has been inducted as a partner

after the death of applicants’ father Mr. Amritlal Jain. Respondent no.5

is the original partner, who is a signatory to the deed of partnership.

Respondent nos. 6 to 10 were inducted as partners within the

percentage of respondent no.5’s share in the partnership firm and as

permitted under the partnership deed. In other words, respondent

nos.4, 6, 7 and 10 are not the partners in the original partnership deed,

and have been inducted subsequently by the original partners within the

share of such original partners and without disturbing such fixed share.

4.

The case of the applicants is that respondent no.1 was