ARB.P. 340/2021

Page 1 of 8

$~3

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+

ARB.P. 340/2021

SUNIL SUD & ANR.

..... Petitioners

Through

Mr. Ashish Dholakia, Sr. Adv.

with Ms. Fareha Ahmad Khan, Ms. Shagun

Chopra and Mr. Akash Panwar, Advs.

Versus

AJAY SUD

..... Respondent

Through:

Mr. Akhil Sibal, Sr. Adv. with

Mr. Nikhil Y. Chawla and Mr. Vikas

Mishra, Advs. for R-3

Mr. Nirmal Prasad, Adv. for R-5/Axis Bank

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C .HARI SHANKAR

O R D E R (ORAL)

%

19.04.2021

(video-conferencing)

C .HARI SHANKAR, J.

ARB.P. 340/2021

1.

Mr. Akhil Sibal, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent,

submits that he has no objection to the disputes in this petition being

referred to arbitration.

2.

The stakes are stated to be in the area of around ₹ 14 crores to ₹

15 crores, though Mr. Ashish Dholakia, learned Senior Counsel for the

petitioners, submits that they may be higher.

2021:DHC:1397

ARB.P. 340/2021

Page 2 of 8

3.

The facts stated in the petition, giving rise to the disputes

between the parties, are thus set out in paras 1 to 16 of the petition:

“1.

That the firm under the name and style of M/s Alnoor

Exports, i.e. was originally constituted between two partners

namely, Mr. Sunil Sud [Petitioner No. 1] and Mr. Ajay Sud

under the deed of partnership dated 22.09.1992 [hereinafter

referred to as “the Partnership Firm”]. The Partnership Firm,

having its registered and principal office in New Delhi, was

set up to, inter alia, carry on the business of manufacturing,

processing, preserving, exporting and trading in frozen meat,

food, eggs and vegetables for human and animal

consumption.

2.

That during the course of the business of the

Partnership Firm, the following immovable assets have been

purchased by the Partnership Firm:

a) Land at Jansath Road, Muzaffarnagar admeasuring

5683.96 square meters [herein after referred to as “the

Factory”].

b) Flat No. 505, Sun View Apartment, Saket, Meerut.

c) Office at J-603, Jasola, New Delhi admeasuring

98.128 square metres.

3. That it is relevant to mention that while the Petitioner No. l

was actively involved in the businesses of the family

including in the Partnership Firm and was largely responsible

for the exponential growth and success of the businesses, the

Petitioner No. l was diagnosed with Motor Neuron Disease

[MND] in the year 2013.

4. That in view of the ill-health of the Petitioner No. l and his

inability to participate in the Partnership Firm, it was

mutually decided between the Petitioner No. l and the

Respondent to induct Petitioner No. 2, who is the daughter of

the Petitioner No. l as a partner in the Partnership Firm.

Accordingly, the Petitioner No. 2 was inducted as a partner

with effect from 06.08.2013 and the partnership was

reconstituted between the Petitioners and the Respondent

without dissolving the Partnership Firm.

2021:DHC:1397

ARB.P. 340/2021

Page 3 of 8

5. That under the Reconstituted Deed of Partnership, it was,

inter alia, agreed that after providing for all expenses

incidental to the business, the net yearly profit/loss of the

business will be allocated between the partners as follows:

i) Mr. Sunil Sud [Petitioner No. 1] :37.50%

ii) Ms. Priya Sud [Petitioner No.2] :12.50%

iii) Mr Ajay Sud [Respondent] : 50%

The Petitioners and the Respondent are therefore,

equal partners in the Partnership Firm.

6. That however, taking undue advantage of the ill-health of

the Petitioner No. l, the Respondent has been conducting the

business of the Partnership Firm to the exclusion and

detriment of the Petitioners. In view of the dishonest manner

in which the business of the Partnership Firm was being

conducted by the Responden