SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(HP) 3066

Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:HHC:19764 )


IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA


Arb. Case No. 203 of 2025


Decided on : 08.05.2026

Uploaded on: 26.05.2026.


Mr. Nitin Gupta ...Applicant Versus Mr. Arrpit Aggarwal ...Respondents


Coram:The Hon'ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice


Whether approved for reporting?


For the applicant: Mr. Mohit Chadha, Advocate (through video Conferencing) and Mr. Shubham Sood, Advocate.

For the respondent: Mr. Deepak Anchit, Advocate (through video conferencing.


(G.S. Sandhawalia)


Chief Justice


May 08, 2026


(cm Thakur)

Petitioner Advocates:Shubham Sood ,Respondent Advocate: Desh Raj Thakur Ravneet Kumar

##PAGE1##

Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:HHC:19764 )

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Arb. Case No. 203 of 2025 Decided on : 08.05.2026 Uploaded on: 26.05.2026.

Mr. Nitin Gupta ...Applicant Versus

Mr. Arrpit Aggarwal ...Respondents

Coram:

The Hon'ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice Whether approved for reporting?

For the applicant: Mr. Mohit Chadha, Advocate (through video Conferencing) and

Mr. Shubham Sood, Advocate.

For the respondent: Mr. Deepak Anchit, Advocate (through video conferencing.

G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice.

The petitioner has filed the instant petition

under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking appointment of a sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes and differences which have arisen between the parties, as a consequence thereof, the petitioner was constrained to dissolve the

partnership.

::: Downloaded on - 31/05/2026 16:31:14 :::CIS

##PAGE2##

2

2. Relevant facts of the case leading to the filing

of the present petition, may be noticfed.

3. The petitioner and respondent are partners in the partnership firm namely “M/s Vidhyasha Pharmaceuticals” having its registered ofÏce at Mouja- Johran Tehsil Nahan District Sirmaur and are engaged in the business of manufacturing pharmaceuticals products, medicines etc. The partnership firm was initially consisting of three partners, however, one of the partners, namely, Mr. Prakash Chand Bansal sought retirement on 06.01.2025. After the retirement of Mr.

HPrakash Chand Bansal, the petitioner was exclusively managing and operating the affairs of the Firm between the period 2015-2018, as the respondent was pursuing higher studies. The father of respondent i.e. Mr. Sushil Gupta (also known as Surender Kumar Gupta) was stated to be participating and assisting the petitioner in conducting the business of the Firm. However, the petitioner was responsible for handling and managing the

::: Downloaded on - 31/05/2026 16:31:14 :::CIS

##PAGE3##

3

day-to-day affairs of the Firm. It is stated that due to the hard work and efforts made by the petitioner, the Firm

experienced a rise in its business during 2015-2018.

4. Since September 2024, the respondent had been conducting the business activfities of the Firm in a manner severely detrimental to its financial and reputational standing with the sole intent of causing unjust enrichment to himself at the cost of the petitioner and the Firm. One of such instances of mismanagement on the part of the respondent was the act of selling the Firm's pharmaceutical products at prices lower than the cost of production, exclusively to entities personally known to him, thereby allowing these entities to earn margins at the expense of the Firm. The petitioner had

Hgenuine apprehension that the respondent has obtained a share for himself out of these margins from the entities to whom he had sold the products. These acts were carried out by the respondent in a clandestine manner with the sole intent of ensuring that his illegal acts do not

come to light.

5. It is stated that in the month of September 2024, the petitioner while going through the accounts of

::: Downloaded on - 31/05/2026 16:31:14 :::CIS

##PAGE4##

4

the Firm for the past 6 months observed that the Firm, despite having substantial orders, was hardly managing to break even. The petitioner therefore had sought from the accountant of the Firm the details of the expenses incurred by the Firm. Such detailfs revealed that the respondent had been selling products manufactured by the Firm to Akkodis at the same cost which the Firm had incurred in procuring the material for such products. On becoming aware of the same, the petitioner had immediately confronted the respondent and sought an explanation from him. However, when questioned, the respondent started threatening the petitioner with severe

consequences.

6. In the month of January 2025, the respondent

Happroached the petitioner to pay his share towards the expenses incurred by the Firm, including but not limited t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top