DARSHAN MAHENDRA NIBJYA Vs. JAYANTILAL TARACHAND OSWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a Petition under Sec. 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ('the Act'), which has been filed in rather piquant circumstances.

(2.) By an order dated August 7, 2023, in view of the two arbitrators nominated by the Petitioner and Respondent No.1 not being able to agree upon a presiding arbitrator, a Learned Single Judge of this Court was pleased to appoint a Retired Judge of this Court as a presiding arbitrator. The order passed under Sec. 11 of the Act was challenged by Respondent No. 1 before the Supreme Court, which eventually, by an order dated April 8, 2024, dismissed the challenge stating that there was no reason to interfere, since eminently, the arbitration agreement had been appropriately considered by the Learned Single Judge.

(3.) Respondent No. 2 is now a partner of the firm, in which the Petitioner was once upon a time, a partner. In fact, the disputes and differences between the parties centre around the exit of the Petitioner from the same firm. Two partnership deeds, identical in their terms, varying only in date form part of the record. The arbitral tribunal is seized of all these proceedings. It is a matter of record that Respondent No. 2 has taken out an application under Sec. 16 of the Act, stating that at the same time as when the Petitioner was a partner of the firm, Respondent No. 2 was not a partner of that firm, and that consequently, there has been no forwarding of the baton of the arbitration agreement, linking the Petitioner to Respondent No. 2 under the arbitration agreement.