##PAGE1##

2026:BHC-OS:3024

Neeta Sawant 905-CARBP(LODG.)--2942-2006.docx

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION PETITION (LODG.) NO. 2942 OF 2026

S.M. Gupta & Sons …..PETITIONER

: VERSUS :

Union of India, through

Minitry of Railways ….RESPONDENT

Mr. Aseem Naphade with Mr. Induprakash Tripathi, i/b. Ms.

Bhagyashri Gawas, for the Petitioner.

Mr. T.J. Pandian with Mr. Gautam Modanwal, for the Respondent.

CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

DATED : 30 JANUARY 2026.

P.C :

1) This is a petition filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration

and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) seeking interim measures

before commencement of arbitral proceedings.

2) Facts of the case have been captured in paras-7(a) to 7(e)

of the order dated 6 January 2026. Instead of narrating the facts of

the case, it would be apposite to extract paras-7(a) to 7(e) of the order

dated 6 January 2026 :

a. Catering contract at Igatpuri was Initially awarded to Shrl

Munshilal Mohilal (Gupta) as an individual in 1929 as per

records available in this office.

b. Vide this offer letter dated: 03-06-1961 upon request from Shri

M M Gupta the contract was transferred to a Partnership Firm

M/s. Munshilal Mohilal & Son comprising of two Partners Shri

Munshilal Mohiial Gupta & his son Shri S M Gupta.

_____________________________________________________________________________

PAGE NO. 1 of 5

FRIDAY , 30 JANUARY 2026

::: Uploaded on - 03/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 03/02/2026 13:13:16 :::

Neeta Sawant 905-CARBP(LODG.)--2942-2006.docx

c. Shri Munshilal Mohilal Gupta died on 17-07-1971. Though

upon death of one of the Partners in case of only two partners the

Partnership stood dissolved & Contract should have been

terminated, Agreements were allowed to be signed by Shri S M

Gupta in absence of clear policy guidelines.

d. Vide HQ’s letter dated 16-12-1993 Shri S. M. Gupta’s request

for permission to include name of his son in the contract & run

the said contract in the name of M/s. S M Gupta and Sons was

accepted. Contract was thus transferred to a Partnership Firm

comprising of two Partners as 1. Shri Sureshchandra Munshilal

Gupta & 2. Shri Rajesh Sureshchandra Gupta.

e. Shri S M Gupta expired on 16-03-2020 and accordingly the

Partnership Firm to which the License was transferred stood

dissolved.

3) Thus, prima facie it appears that the stall in question is

operational at Igatpuri Railway Station since 1929. The Railways

themselves have permitted addition of names of two partners,

Sureshchandra M. Gupta and Rajesh Gupta vide Headquarter’s letter

dated 16 December 1993.

4) Upon being queried by the Court, Mr. Pandian fairly admits

that in the case of individual license, the policy of the Railways permit

transfer of the license in favour of the legal heirs. He would further

submit that this dispensation does not apply to partnership firms. Mr.

Pandian relies on provisions of Section 42(c) of the Indian Partnership

Act, 1932 in support of his contention that death of one of the partners

results in dissolution of the firm. Section 42 of the Partnership Act,

1932 reads thus :

42. Dissolution on the happening of certain contingencies.—

Subject to contract between the partners a firm is dissolved—

(a) if constituted for a fixed term, by the expiry of that

term;

(b) if constituted to carry out one or more adventures or

undertakings, by the completion thereof;

(c) by the death of a partner; and

(d) by the adjudication of a partner as an insolvent.

_____________________________________________________________________________

PAGE NO. 2 of 5

FRIDAY , 30 JANUARY 2026

::: Uploaded on - 03/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 03/02/2026 13:13:16 :::

Neeta Sawant 905-CARBP(LODG.)--2942-2006.docx

5) Section 42 contains a non-obstante clause ‘subject to the

contract between the partners’. Therefore, a disputed question arises

in the present case as to whether the Firm stood dissolved on death of

the partner- S.M. Gupta of whether it continues to survive. This issue

can be considered by the Arbitral Trib