LAWS(GJH)-2024-9-18

MAHESH JAYRAMDAS MEGHRAJANI Vs. UMESH RATILAL SHAH

Decided On September 12, 2024
Mahesh Jayramdas Meghrajani Appellant
V/S
Umesh Ratilal Shah Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Kamal B. Trivedi, the learned senior advocate, with Mr. Manav Mehta and Ms. Ankeeta Rajput, the learned advocates appearing for the appellants and Mr. Saurabh Soparkar, the learned senior advocate with Mr. Aditya Mehta for Universal Legal for the respondent No.4 and the learned advocate Mr. Harsh Gajjar for the respondent Nos. 3 and 5.3 and perused the record.

(2.) The two connected Appeals under Sec. 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 have been filed against the judgment and order 24/10/2018 dismissing the application filed under Sec. 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1996'), upholding the award dtd. 17/2/2012 and the additional award dtd. 30/11/2013 passed by the learned sole Arbitrator.

(3.) The main question before us is about the scope and purport of Sec. 33 of the Act, 1996. To deal with the controversy at hand, certain relevant facts are to be noted at this stage. Pursuant to the arbitration clause contained in the deed of partnership, the dispute between the partners of M/s. Rupam Cinema Enterprise, a partnership firm was referred to the learned sole Arbitrator. There were four sets of claimants in the partnership firm before the learned Arbitrator. The firm in the name and style of M/s. Rupam Cinema Enterprise was constituted under a deed of partnership dtd. 9/8/1973 to carry out business of running two theaters viz. Apsara and Aaradhana. When the firm was constituted, there were four group of partners and the shares of the partners in the profit and loss of the firm as provided in the original partnership deed were as under :-