Back
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Somasekhar Sundaresan, J
Mayank J. Shah – Appellant
Versus
Raju V. Shah – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. nature of section 37 petition challenging an interim order under the arbitration act. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. duty of disclosure and non-interference with the majority partner's commercial wisdom. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 3. interpretation of prior consent orders regarding the conduct of partnership affairs. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 4. scrutiny of evidence in support of asset disposition as a protective measure. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27) |
| 5. court's role in supporting arbitral discretion for the preservation of assets. (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35) |
| 6. limited scope of judicial interference in discretionary interim orders under section 37. (Para 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41) |
JUDGEMENT :
Context and Factual Background:
1. This is a Petition filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“the Act”) impugning an order dated September 20, 2025 (“Impugned Order”) passed under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
2. The Petitioners, Mayank J. Shah, Shreyans J. Shah and Shruti M. Shah (“collectively Mayank”) and the Respondent No. 1, Raju V. Shah (“Raju”) are partners of R
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
