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)(Mad) 39881

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Honourable Mr.Justice P. DHANABAL
M.John Rose – Appellant
Versus
D.John Franklin – Respondent



##PAGE1##

Arb.O.P.(Com.Div.)No.731 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Reserved on: 30.03.2026

Pronounced on: 30.03.2026

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE P.DHANABAL

Arb.O.P.(Com.Div.)No.731 of 2025

M.John Rose (Male/70 years)

S/o.Maria Michel Rep. by its Power Agent,

Biju John, S/o.John Rose

having permanent residence at No.5-55, Shanthi Nikethan,

Otta Pilavaillai Veedu, Puthukadai, Arudesom Village,

Vilavancode Taluk (Now Killiyoor Taluk), Kanyakumari District. ...Petitioner

vs.

D.John Franklin ...Respondent

Prayer: Arbitration Original Petition filed under Section 11(6) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to appoint Mr.S.Mukund, Senior Advocate of Madras High Court or any other person as this Court may deem fit, proper and appropriate to act as the Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes and differences that have arisen between the petitioner and the respondent as per

Clause 20 of the Partnership Deed, dated 05.04.2006.

For Petitioner : Mr.Abhinav Parthasarathy

For Respondent : Mr.Adithya Varadarajan

1/11

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/05/2026 02:09:50 pm )

##PAGE2##

Arb.O.P.(Com.Div.)No.731 of 2025

ORDER

This petition has been filed by the petitioner to appoint Mr.S.Mukund,

Senior Advocate of Madras High Court or any other person as the Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes and differences that have arisen between the petitioner and the respondent, as per Clause 20 of the Partnership Deed

dated 05.04.2006.

2. According to the petitioner, he entered into Partnership Deed with

the respondent on 05.04.2006. Now the petitioner is residing at Muscat, Oman and thereby he appointed Mr.Biju John as Power Agent through Power Deed dated 17.07.2025. The petitioner and the respondent are hailing from the same village and are known to each other. While so, the respondent had approached the petitioner seeking financial assistance to set up M/s.HSD Dealership of petrol, diesel, oil and speed diesel etc. at Panikulam Village. The petitioner had invested money towards purchase of the property to set up the petrol bunk and to pay the necessary licence fee and earnest money. The dealership licence was obtained in the name of the respondent under the name and style of M/s.Annai Petroleum at Panikulam Village. The properties were also purchased in the name of the respondent. The petitioner invested a sum of Rupees 16.5 lakhs for the business and also invested a sum of Rupees 2 lakhs towards earnest money with BPCL for getting a letter of intent towards

construction of an office building for the purpose of partnership business.

2/11

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/05/2026 02:09:50 pm )

##PAGE3##

Arb.O.P.(Com.Div.)No.731 of 2025

2.1. As per Clause 6 of the Partnership Deed, purchase of land was

done in the name of the respondent and letter of intent and licence were also obtained in the name of respondent from BPCL. The bank account of the partnership firm was held with the State Bank of Travancore, Irenipuram Branch, solely operated by the respondent. On 07.03.2018, the respondent issued a letter to the petitioner stating that the petitioner has orally sought for return of capital amount invested in the firm and the respondent is ready to refund the capital amount of Rupees 16.5 lakhs. The petitioner had issued a reply notice dated 03.04.2018 denying the averments in the notice and denied his consent to wind up the partnership business and thereafter, since 2018 there has been no communication from the respondent and no payments have been rendered by the respondent to the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner issued a legal notice dated 22.02.2024 claiming equal share in the above said

business. No reply has been received from the respondent.

2.2. Taking advantage of the petitioner's old age and his frequent

absence from the Country, the respondent had failed to pay lawful dues as per the Partnership Deed and also not permitted the petitioner to access the books related to the business. Thereafter, on 04.03.202

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