Arb. P. 842/2019 and connected matter Page 1 of 40

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Judgment delivered on: November 11, 2022

+

ARB.P. 842/2019

SIMRAN SODHI

..... Petitioner

Through:

Mr. Vikas Arora and Mr. Mohit

Dagar, Advs.

versus

SANDEEP SINGH

..... Respondent

Through:

Mr. Samrat Nigam, Mr. Abhimanyu

A. Walia, Mr. Rishabh Gupa, Mr.

Amit Punj and Mr. Karambir Singh,

Advs.

AND

+

ARB.P. 199/2022

SANDEEP SINGH

..... Petitioner

Through:

Mr. Samrat Nigam, Mr. Abhimanyu

A. Walia, Mr. Rishabh Gupa, Mr.

Amit Punj and Mr. Karambir Singh,

Advs.

versus

SIMRAN SODHI & ORS.

..... Respondents

Through:

Mr. Vikas Arora and Mr. Mohit

Dagar, Advs. for R1.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO

J U D G M E N T

V. KAMESWAR RAO, J

1.

As the captioned petitions arise from the same factual matrix,

seeking appointment of an arbitrator, I shall proceed to decide both the

Digitally Signed By:ASHEESH

KUMAR YADAV

Signing Date:12.11.2022

18:04:42

Signature Not Verified

Arb. P. 842/2019 and connected matter Page 2 of 40

petitions together.

ARB.P. 842/2019

2.

The petitioner herein, Simran Sodhi, and the respondent

Sandeep Singh entered into a Partnership Deed on March 10, 2014, for

carrying out manufacturing and trading of plastics, electronics and

electrical items under the name of S.S. Manufacturing (‘the Firm’,

hereinafter). In terms of the Partnership Deed, it was agreed that the

profit/loss incurred by the resultant Partnership Firm shall be borne in

the ratio of 67% (by the petitioner) and 33% (by the respondent).

However, the said ratio was subsequently altered to 60% (by the

petitioner) and 40% (by the respondent).

3.

It is submitted by Mr. Vikas Arora, learned counsel for the

petitioner that due to poor market conditions and various actions,

breaches and omissions on the part of the respondent, including

misbehavior with the Firm's suppliers/vendors, the Firm suffered

substantial losses. In view of the losses suffered by the Firm, it became

impossible for the petitioner to continue with and sustain the Firm any

longer. Resultantly, the petitioner and the respondent decided to

amicably dissolve the partnership. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner, the

respondent and several other persons/representatives had a meeting on

June 21, 2019 wherein it was discussed that there are irrecoverable

losses caused to the Firm and both parties need to come up with an exit

plan to close down the Firm completely. As agreed by the respondent

in the said meeting, it was decided that both partners i.e. the petitioner

and the respondent, individually, would evaluate the total assets and

liabilities of the Firm and mutually prepare and agree upon an exit

Digitally Signed By:ASHEESH

KUMAR YADAV

Signing Date:12.11.2022

18:04:42

Signature Not Verified

Arb. P. 842/2019 and connected matter Page 3 of 40

plan. Subsequently, the petitioner and the respondent met again on

June 25, 2019, where the petitioner had hoped that the respondent

would discuss the exit plan with a positive frame of mind in order to

dissolve the Firm. The losses as reflected in the balance sheet of the

partnership Firm as on that day was ₹4,90,52,569.91/- .

4.

However, no action was taken by the respondent on the exit

plan offered by the petitioner, i.e. offering to liquidate the stocks,

plants and machinery of the Firm immediately and close down the

factory to stop any further losses and running expenses. Rather, the

respondent kept delaying the matter on one pretext or the other. It is

stated that in the middle of such important events, the respondent went

on a 10 days' vacation and refused to respond to the queries/

communications from the petitioner.

5.

In the meantime, the customers from whom various orders

were taken and even advances were obta