221

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

ARB-327-2025 (O&M)

Date of Decision: 23.12.2025

KARAN PAUL

....Petitioner(s)

Versus

K P H DREAM CRICKET PRIVATE LIMITED AND OTHERS

.....Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASGURPREET SINGH PURI

Present: Mr. Puneet Bali, Senior Advocate with

Mr. Kunal Vajani, Advocate,

Mr. Vipul Joshi, Advocate,

Mr. Shubhang Tandon, Advocate,

Mr. Ishan Puri, Advocate,

Ms. Favi Singla, Advocate,

for the petitioner.

Mr. Deepak Sabharwal, Advocate,

for respondent No.1.

Mr. Amit Jhanji, Senior Advocate assisted by

Mr. Shrey Goel, Advocate,

Mr. Ankur Sehgal, Advocate,

Mr. Shubham Mahajan, Advocate,

for respondent No.2.

Mr. Anand Chhibbar, Senior Advocate with

Mr. Amitabh Tewari, Advocate,

for respondent No.3.

Mr. Sangram S. Saron, Advocate and

Mr. M. B. Rajwade, Advocate,

for respondent No.4.

****

JASGURPREET SINGH PURI , J. (Oral)

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’)

praying for appointment of a Sole Arbitrator.

2. Mr. Puneet Bali, learned Senior Counsel with Mr. Kunal Vajani, Advocate for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner and the respondents are shareholders and Directors of a Company namely, K.P.H. Dream Cricket Private Limited. He submitted that a specific clause exists in the Articles of Association vide Clause 67, which provides that whenever any difference or dispute arises between the Company on the one hand and any of the members or their heirs, executors, administrators, nominees or assignees on the other hand or between the members inter-se or their respective heirs, executors, administrators, nominees or assigns inter-se touching the true intent, construction or incident or consequences of these Articles or touching anything done, executed emitted or suffered in pursuance thereof or to any affairs of the Company, every such disputes or differences shall be referred to the sole arbitration of the Chairman. He further submitted that a dispute arose between the parties in view of the fact that there was a resolution passed by the Company, wherein it was decided that the Chairman of the Company shall be appointed on rotational basis and various other issues were also in dispute and in consonance with the aforesaid Clause 67, the petitioner invoked the aforesaid arbitration clause by issuance of a notice dated 18.04.2025 under Section 21 of the Act by describing the claims in the aforesaid notice and proposing a list of names for appointment of a Sole Arbitrator. He submitted that to the aforesaid notice, reply was given by the respondents wherein they have stated that the dispute which has been raised is not an arbitrable dispute and the same cannot be referred to arbitration. A detailed reply has been filed by the respondents with regard to the same. He submitted that since the mechanism provided in the aforesaid Clause 67 for appointment of an Arbitrator with the consent of the parties has failed, the present application has been filed under Section 11 of the Act for appointment of an independent Sole Arbitrator.

3. Mr. Amit Jhanji, learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.2 and Mr. Anand Chhibbar, learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.3 have submitted that the present petition which has been filed for appointment of an Arbitrator is liable to be dismissed. They submitted that although there is no dispute with regard to existence of Clause 67 in the Articles of Association and the issuance of notice by the petitioner in this regard but at the same time, the dispute cannot be referred to the Arbitrator for various other reasons. In this regard, they submitted that the dispute which is so raised in the notice issued by the petitioner is not an arbitrable dispute as it is an inherent decision which is projected to be the dispute by the petitioner and when there is such kind of dispute within the Company, then the remedy available with the aggrieved person is to file a petition on the ground of o