* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Reserved on: 10.11.2025

Pronounced on: 22.12.2025

+ FAO(OS) (COMM) 194/2022 & CM APPL. 32863/2022, CM

APPL. 22098/2025

SHRI BRAJENDRA KHANDELWAL .....Appellant

Through: Mr.S. S. Sastry, Mr.Rahul

Kumar and Mr.Abhishek

Anand, Advs.

versus

M/S RAJENDRA IRON MART & ORS. .....Respondents

Through: Mr.Pawanjit S. Bindra, Sr. Adv.

with Mr.Vinayak Marwah,

Adv.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MADHU JAIN

J U D G M E N T

NAVIN CHAWLA, J.

1. This appeal has been filed challenging the Judgment and Order dated 20.05.2022 (hereinafter referred to as the „Impugned Order‟) passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in O.M.P. (COMM) 135/2019, titled M/s Rajendra Iron Mart & Anr. v. Shri Brajendra Khandelwal & Ors., whereby, the learned Single Judge was pleased to allow the application filed under the Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short, „A&C Act‟) by the respondent nos. 1 and 2 herein, and set aside the Arbitral Award dated 31.01.2019 (in

short, „Award‟).

Brief Facts:

2. It is the case of the appellant that a Partnership Firm was being run by respondent no.2 along with three other partners, Sh. Suresh Chand Khandelwal, Sh. Rajender Prasad Khandelwal, and Mr Lalit Kumar Mathur, in terms of the Partnership Deed dated 02.06.1981. Sh. Suresh Chand Khandelwal expired on 01.08.1992, Sh. Rajender Prasad Khandelwal expired on 08.10.2001, and Sh. Lalit Kumar Mathur expired on 25.04.2004. Thereafter, a Partnership Firm was constituted vide a Partnership Deed dated 15.01.2008 (hereinafter the „Partnership Deed‟) by four partners inter alia consisting of the respondent nos. 2 and 3 and the appellant. The same was registered with the Registrar of Firms on 17.07.2008.

3. It is averred that in terms of Clause 15 of the Partnership Deed dated 02.06.1981, the heirs of the deceased partner were entitled to become partners in his/her place. Accordingly, the appellant was joined as a partner in the business of the Firm, which stood re- constituted with effect from 15.01.2008. The partners of the reconstituted Firm further agreed that the profits and losses of the partnership business would be shared and contributed by the four partners in the following proportion:

4. It is the case of the appellant that the Firm had applied to the Delhi Development Authority (in short, „DDA‟) for an industrial plot of land admeasuring about 605 sq. yards, bearing no. 179, Block A, Okhla Industrial Development Area, Phase-I, Delhi (in short, „Property‟). By a letter dated 29.09.1970, the DDA had allotted the said Property to the Firm, however, the said allotment was cancelled by the DDA subsequently. The respondent no.2 and the respondent no.1 Firm had filed a Writ Petition, that is W.P.(C) No. 6398/2008, titled M/S Rajendra Iron Mart & Anr. v DDA, challenging the cancellation of the allotment by DDA. The said petition was allowed by the learned Single Judge of this Court vide its Order dated 20.07.2011, directing the DDA to restore the allotment of the Property in favour of the Firm.

5. The DDA challenged the said decision before a Division Bench of this Court in form of LPA 196/2012, titled Delhi Development Authority v. Rajindra Iron Mart & Anr. In the said appeal, the appellant herein sought to implead itself as a party by moving an impleadment application, however, the said application was dismissed by this Court, holding that the inter se dispute between the parties herein was not the subject matter of the said LPA. Thereafter, the said appeal was dismissed by this Court vide its Orders dated 02.07.2012 and 20.07.2012.

6. The appellant claims that the respondent no.2 had attempted to exclude the appellant from the Firm, and thereby, his share in the Property, by fabricating and manipulating the Retirement Deed dated 19.01.2010 as well as Form V, that is, the notice of change in the constitution of the Firm filed with the Registrar of Firms.

7. The appellant, therefore, issued a notice dated 03.07