BHARAT SURSINGH ASHER Vs. RUPA PRAVEEN ASHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners have approached this Court seeking nomination of an Arbitrator to resolve the disputes amid them and the respondent in accordance with Clause 22 of Annexure-I reconstituted partnership deed dtd. 29/1/2009.

(2.) Summary of the facts stated in the memorandum of arbitration request is as under:-

(3.) Therefore on 9/3/2017, the petitioners 1 and 2, for compliance pertaining to the Customs Department, reconstituted partnership deed. On 24/7/2017, petitioners along with wife of the 2nd petitioner reconstituted the partnership deed for compliance requirements pertaining to the Shipping Corporation of India, Cochin Port Trust and in connection with the requirements in banks. They were ready and willing to execute a properly reconstituted partnership deed with the respondent. However, the respondent declined to co-operate. It is also alleged that the respondent issued multiple e-mails and legal notices raising baseless allegations of mismanagement to the petitioners. The respondent approached police authorities against the petitioners, leading to registration of Crime No.625 of 2024 of Harbour Police Station. Petitioners state that due to the registration of the crime at the instance of the respondent and issues caused by the non-co-operation and hostile attitude of the respondent, the firm sustained huge business-related losses. In order to resolve the disputes between the petitioners and the respondent, the petitioners issued Annexure-III notice dtd. 14/8/2025, invoking the arbitration clause in Annexure-I partnership deed, proposing the appointment of an Arbitrator. Names of two retired Judges of this Court were proposed in the notice. However, despite receipt of the notice, the respondent did not co-operate for arbitration. She did not send any reply to Annexure-III notice. Hence, the arbitration request was filed.