{"id":210700,"date":"2010-01-22T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-01-21T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sudip-vs-ramniklal-on-22-january-2010"},"modified":"2017-10-29T19:38:20","modified_gmt":"2017-10-29T14:08:20","slug":"sudip-vs-ramniklal-on-22-january-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sudip-vs-ramniklal-on-22-january-2010","title":{"rendered":"Sudip vs Ramniklal on 22 January, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
Sudip vs Ramniklal on 22 January, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: M.R. Shah,&Nbsp;<\/div>\n
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System \n\n  \n  \n    \n\n \n \n    \t      \n         \n\t    \n\t\t   Print\n\t\t\t\t          \n\n  \n\n\n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nIAAP\/68\/2009\t 14\/ 14\tJUDGMENT \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nPETN.\nUNDER ARBITRATION ACT No. 68 of 2009\n \n\nWith\n\n\n \n\nPETN.\nUNDER ARBITRATION ACT No. 69 of 2009\n \n\nTo\n\n\n \n\nPETN.\nUNDER ARBITRATION ACT No. 72 of 2009 \n\n \n\n \n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \n \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH\n \n \n=========================================================\n\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n1\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tReporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n2\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nTo\n\t\t\tbe referred to the Reporter or not ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n3\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\ttheir Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n4\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tthis case involves a substantial question of law as to the\n\t\t\tinterpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order\n\t\t\tmade thereunder ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n5\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tit is to be circulated to the civil judge ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n=========================================================\n\n\n \n\nSUDIP\nDILIPBHAI KINARIWALA - Petitioner(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nRAMNIKLAL\nJIVANLAL KINARIVALA & CO & 9 - Respondent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n\n\n \n\n \nAppearance\n: \nHL PATEL ADVOCATES\nfor Petitioner(s) : 1, \nMR SUJAL S\nSHAH for Respondent(s) : 1 -\n10. \n=========================================================\n\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nCORAM\n\t\t\t: \n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 22\/01\/2010 \n\n \n\n \n \nORAL\nJUDGMENT<\/pre>\n
As
\n\tcommon question of law and facts arise in all this group of
\n\tpetitions and as the same are between the same parties, they are
\n\tbeing disposed of by this common judgment and order.\n<\/p>\n
In
\n\tall these petitions, respective petitioners have prayed for an
\n\tappropriate writ, direction and order to appoint sole arbitrator in
\n\tthe matters of       (1)  M\/s.Ramniklal Jivanlal Kinarivala &
\n\tco. (2) M\/s.RJK Automatics, (3) M\/s.Pradip Engineering Works, (4)
\n\tM\/s.Sharad Knotters  and (5) M\/s RJK Machine Products respectively
\n\twith respect to settlement of accounts of the respective partnership
\n\tfirms<\/p>\n
Heard,
\n\tShri Asim Pandya, learned advocate has appeared on behalf of the
\n\trespective petitioners and  Shri Sujal Shah, learned advocate has
\n\tappeared on behalf of the respective respondents inclusive of
\n\trespective partnership firm.\n<\/p>\n
It
\n\tis the case on behalf of the petitioner that he is one of the
\n\tpartners in the respective respondent No.1-firm and rest of the
\n\trespective respondents are partners of the respective firms. That
\n\tthe petitioner wanted to retire from the respective partnership firm
\n\tas there were differences between the petitioner and other partners
\n\tand therefore, by letter dated 1st September, 2008, he
\n\texpressed his wish to retire from the respective partnership firm.
\n\tThat in the said letter, petitioner also requested the respondents
\n\tto settle his account. It is the case on behalf of the petitioner
\n\tthat thereafter, by letter dated 4th October, 2008, he
\n\tinformed the respondents that no decision or action has been taken
\n\tby the firm in respect of the request made by him and he may be
\n\trelieved from the respective firm with effect from 1st
\n\tOctober, 2008 and settle his account, as per his desire expressed in
\n\tearlier letter. That the communication dated 4.10.2008, was
\n\tresponded by respective respondent No.1 vide letter dated 7th
\n\tOctober, 2008, informing the petitioner that the petitioner is
\n\trelieved as a partner from 1.10.2008, by further informing the
\n\tpetitioner that books of accounts of the firm for the year ended on
\n\t31.3.2008 are ready and petitioner can verify the same and the books
\n\tof account for the period from 1.4.2008 to 30.9.2008 will be given
\n\tto the petitioner as and when it will be ready. The petitioner was
\n\tfurther informed to discuss the terms and conditions of the
\n\tretirement from the firm so that mutually acceptable retirement deed
\n\tcan be prepared to settle the petitioner’s debit\/ credit account and
\n\tliabilities of the firm. It is the case on behalf of the petitioner
\n\tthat despite the above, nothing further was done in respect of
\n\tsettlement of account and therefore, by communication dated 26th
\n\tDecember, 2008, petitioner informed the respective respondents that
\n\tdespite his repeated requests, as nobody in the firm is taking
\n\tinterest to settle his account, he was invoking arbitration clause
\n\tof the Deed of Partnership, which provided appointment of Arbitrator
\n\tin the event of any dispute or differences among the partners. That
\n\tthe petitioner appointed one Shri Nimish Vayawala, Chartered
\n\tAccountant as his Arbitrator. It is the case on behalf of the
\n\tpetitioner that in response to the letter dated 26th
\n\tDecember, 2008, the petitioner has informed that they have appointed
\n\tone Shri Nilay B.Desai, Chartered Accountant, as sole Arbitrator.
\n\tThat the petitioner by letter dated 10th February, 2009,
\n\tinformed the said Shri Nilay B.Desai, Chartered Accountant  that it
\n\twould be improper for him to accept the work of Arbitrator on behalf
\n\tof the respondent to resolve the disputes raised by the petitioner
\n\tas he is the person who is the Chartered Accountant of the
\n\tpartnership firm and he has prepared the accounts and has audited
\n\tthe same and is getting the remuneration from the partnership firm.
\n\tTherefore, it was pointed out that he was having pecuniary and other
\n\tbias, and therefore, he cannot be accepted as Arbitrator to resolve
\n\tthe dispute. That in response to the same, by letter dated 16th
\n\tFebruary, 2009, the said Shri Nilay B.Desai, Chartered Accountant
\n\tinformed the petitioner that petitioner should not have reservation
\n\tfor his appointment as sole Arbitrator. It is the case on behalf of
\n\tthe petitioner that thereafter, by letter dated 14th
\n\tMarch, 2009, petitioner informed the respondent that if there was no
\n\tconsensus on the point of appointment of sole Arbitrator, he
\n\twould be suggesting three names for selection, out of which, any of
\n\tthe Arbitrators could be considered. However, the
\n\trespondents, by communication dated 21st March, 2009,
\n\tinformed the petitioner that they would continue with Shri
\n\tN.B.Desai. Chartered Accountant, as their Arbitrator and the
\n\tpetitioner should select any one out of three persons as named
\n\ttherein as 3rd Arbitrator for resolving the disputes.\n<\/p>\n
It
\n\tis also the case on behalf of the petitioner that in the meantime,
\n\tthe offer came up from the respondent that dispute will be resolved
\n\tby holding a joint meeting. Therefore, petitioner wrote letter dated
\n\t25th March, 2009 showing his desire to have joint meeting
\n\ton any suitable time and date convenient to all and pursuant to
\n\twhich, there was joint meeting to resolve the dispute between them.
\n\tHowever, there was no fruitful result and therefore, by letter dated
\n\t8th April, 2009, petitioner informed the respondent that
\n\tpetitioner would be approaching the Hon’ble High Court for the
\n\tappointment of Arbitrator as parties have failed to invoke
\n\tArbitration Clause. Hence, the common petitioner has preferred the
\n\tpresent applications to appoint the Arbitrator to resolve the
\n\tdisputes between the petitioner and the respondents and to refer the
\n\tdispute to the Arbitrator as per the Arbitration clause of
\n\trespective partnership deed.\n<\/p>\n
Shri
\n\tAsim Pandya, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respective
\n\tpetitioners has stated that there is a dispute with respect to
\n\tsettlement of accounts of the petitioner with respective partnership
\n\tfirm and despite effort by the petitioner to resolve the dispute
\n\tmutually, the same could not be resolved and therefore, as per the
\n\tArbitration Clause in the respective partnership deed, dispute with
\n\trespect to settlement of accounts is required to be referred to
\n\tArbitration. It is submitted that as such, respective respondents
\n\tdid appoint the sole Arbitrator, Shri N.B.Desai, Chartered
\n\tAccountant, and even the respondents are insisting to continue with
\n\tthe appointment of Shri N.B.Desai, Chartered Accountant, as the sole
\n\tArbitrator. However, as Shri N.B.Desai, Chartered Accountant of the
\n\tpartnership firm is taking remuneration from the partnership firm
\n\tand in-fact, has audited the books of accounts of the partnership
\n\tfirm, he would have the pecuniary and other bias and therefore, he
\n\tcannot be accepted as sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute. It
\n\tis submitted by Shri Asim Pandya, learned advocate appearing on
\n\tbehalf of the petitioner that said Shri N.B.Desai, Chartered
\n\tAccountant, who has audited the books of accounts, is required to be
\n\tand can be cross-examined by the petitioner. It is, therefore,
\n\tsubmitted by Shri Asim Pandya,learned advocate appearing on behalf
\n\tof the petitioner that as the respondents have appointed the sole
\n\tArbitrator, meaning thereby, there is a dispute which is required to
\n\tbe referred to Arbitration and therefore, it is requested to allow
\n\tthe present applications and to appoint the sole Arbitrator to
\n\tadjudicate the disputes between the parties, more particularly,
\n\tsettlement of account of respective partnership firm.\n<\/p>\n
All
\n\tthese petitions are opposed by Shri Sujal S.Shah, learned advocate
\n\tappearing on behalf of the respective respondents. Shri Shah,
\n\tlearned advocate appearing on behalf of the respective respondents
\n\thas submitted that as such, the claim of the petitioner is too vague
\n\tand there is no mention of an entry which is disputed by the
\n\tpetitioner in the books of accounts. Therefore, it is submitted that
\n\tfor such a vague claim, the matter is not required to be referred to
\n\tArbitration. Therefore, it is submitted that as such, there is no
\n\tlive claim and\/or claim at all, which is required to be referred to
\n\tArbitration. It is submitted that in absence of any particular entry
\n\tin the books of accounts the petitioner is disputed, this Court
\n\twould not be in position to give finding with respect to live claim
\n\tor the claim which is required to be referred to Arbitration. It is
\n\tsubmitted that in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
\n\tin the case of Shree Ram Mills Ltd. V\/s. Utility Premises (P)
\n\tLtd. reported in (2007) 4 SCC 599 for such a vague claim
\n\tthat the dispute is not required to be referred to Arbitration. Shri
\n\tShah, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respective
\n\trespondents has heavily relied upon paragraph No.24 of the aforesaid
\n\tdecision.\n<\/p>\n
On
\n\tthe point of the appointment of Shri N.B.Desai, Chartered Accountant
\n\tas the sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the parties
\n\tand the contention on behalf of the petitioner that the respondents
\n\thave admitted that there is a dispute which is required to be
\n\treferred to Arbitration, Shri Shah, learned advocate appearing on
\n\tbehalf of the respondents has relied upon the decision of the
\n\tHon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Bharose Sharma V\/s. Mahant
\n\tRam Swaroop and Others reported in (2001) 9 SCC 471 (paragraph
\n\tNo.18), and submitted that any admission on the question of law
\n\twould not be binding to the respondents. It is submitted that the
\n\texistence of dispute is a mixed question of law and fact and
\n\ttherefore, such an attempt which is contrary to the law is not
\n\tbinding upon the respondents. It is further submitted that even such
\n\tan attempt can be said to be an attempt with respect to existing
\n\tdispute. By making above submissions, it is requested to dismiss the
\n\tpresent petitions.\n<\/p>\n
Heard
\n\tthe learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties
\n\tat length.\n<\/p>\n
At
\n\tthe outset, it is required to be noted that dispute between the
\n\tpetitioner and the concerned respondents is with respect to
\n\tsettlement of accounts of the respective partnership firm. It is
\n\talso required to be noted that even as per the Arbitration clause in
\n\tthe partnership deed of the respective partnership firms, all
\n\tdisputes and questions whatsoever which shall arise during the
\n\tcontinuance of the partnership or thereafter between the partners or
\n\ttheir legal representatives concerning this indenture or the
\n\tconstruction or application there of or of any clause of thing
\n\tcontained therein or any account, valuation, division of assets,
\n\tdebts and liabilities of the firm or any other matter in any way
\n\trelating to the partnership or the affairs of the partnership or the
\n\trights and duties or liabilities of any person hereunder shall be
\n\treferred to a single arbitrator if the parties agree upon one or if
\n\tnot two arbitrators one to be appointed by each of the parties to
\n\tthe dispute or difference in accordance with and subject to the
\n\tprovisions of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 or any other
\n\tsubsisting statutory modification thereof or substituted enactment
\n\tthereof. It is to be noted that after the joint meeting when the
\n\tparties could not settle the dispute, and when the petitioner
\n\tinvoked the Arbitration Clause by appointing an Arbitrator,
\n\trespondents appointed Shri N.B.Desai, Chartered Accountant to the
\n\tsole Arbitrator. However, for the reasons stated, said Shri
\n\tN.B.Desai, who is the Chartered Accountant of the partnership firm
\n\tand is getting remuneration from the respective partnership firm, he
\n\thimself has audited the books of account of respective partnership
\n\tfirm, he would have a pecuniary and other bias, the same was not
\n\taccepted by the petitioner. Therefore, the existence of the dispute
\n\tbetween the parties, which is required to be referred to Arbitration
\n\tis not disputed by the respondents otherwise they would not have
\n\tappointed Shri N.B.Desai, Chartered Accountant as sole Arbitrator.
\n\tIn view of the above, now it is not open for the respondents to
\n\tcontend that there is no dispute and\/or the claim is too vague and
\n\ttherefore, the dispute is not required to be referred to
\n\tArbitration. The existence of dispute is the question of fact and
\n\tcannot be considered as question of law. In view of the above,
\n\tdecision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Bharose
\n\tSharma (supra) (2001) 9 SCC 471 shall not be of any assistance
\n\tto the respondents. The facts before the Hon’ble Supreme Court were
\n\tall together different. In the present case, by appointing the sole
\n\tArbitrator, the thing which is admitted by the respondents is the
\n\texistence of dispute which is required to be referred to Arbitrator.
\n\t Respondents cannot now be permitted to say that dispute is not
\n\trequired to be referred to Arbitration at all.\n<\/p>\n
Now
\n\tso far as the reliance placed upon the decision of the Hon’ble
\n\tSupreme Court in the case of Shree Ram Mills Ltd. V\/s. Utility
\n\tPremises (P) Ltd. reported in
\n\t(2007) 4 SCC 599  is concerned, as such, entire paragraph
\n\tNo.27 is required to be considered as a whole. Paragraph No.27 of
\n\tthe said decision is as under:\n<\/p>\n
27.\tWe shall take
\nup the last contention raised by the appellant regarding the scope of
\nthe order passed by the Chief Justice or his Designate Judge. It was
\ncontended that since the Designate Judge has already given findings
\nregarding the existence of live claim as also the limitation, it
\nwould be for this Court to test the correctness of the findings.  As
\nagainst this it was argued by the respondent that such issues
\nregarding the live claim as also the limitation are decided by the
\nChief Justice or his Designate not finally but for the purpose of
\nmaking appointment of the Arbitrators under Section 11(6) of the Act.
\nIn our opinion what the Chief Justice or his Designate does is to put
\nthe arbitration proceedings in motion by appointing an Arbitrator and
\nit is for that purpose that the finding is given in respect of the
\nexistence of the arbitration clause, the territorial jurisdiction,
\nlive issue and the limitation.  It cannot be disputed that unless
\nthere is a finding given on these issues, there would be no question
\nof proceeding with the arbitration.  Shri Salve as well as Shri
\nVenugopal invited our attention to the observations made in para 39
\nin SBP & CO. vs. Patel Engineering Ltd. & Anr. which are as
\nunder (SCC pp.660-61).\n<\/p>\n
” 39. \tIt is
\nnecessary to define what exactly the Chief Justice, approached with
\nan application under Section 11 of the Act, is to decide at that
\nstage. Obviously, he has to decide his own jurisdiction in the sense
\nwhether the party making the motion has approached the right High
\nCourt.  He has to decide whether there is an arbitration agreement,
\nas defined in the Act and whether the person who has made the request
\nbefore him, is a party to such an agreement. It is necessary to
\nindicate that he can also decide the question whether the claim was a
\ndead one; or a long-barred claim that was sought to be resurrected
\nand whether the parties have concluded the transaction by recording
\nsatisfaction of their mutual rights and obligations or by receiving
\nthe final payment without objection.  It may not be possible at that
\nstage, to decide whether a live claim made, is one which comes within
\nthe purview of the arbitration clause.  It will be appropriate to
\nleave that question to be decided by the Arbitral Tribunal on taking
\nevidence, along with the merits of the claims involved in the
\narbitration.  The Chief Justice has to decide whether the applicant
\nhas satisfied the conditions for appointing an arbitrator under
\nSection 11(6) of the Act. For the purpose of taking a decision on
\nthese aspects, the Chief Justice can either proceed or get such
\nevidence recorded, as may be necessary.  We think that adoption of
\nthis procedure in the context of the Act would best serve the purpose
\nsought to  be achieved by the Act of expediting the process of
\narbitration, without too many approaches to the court at various
\nstages of the proceedings before the Arbitral Tribunal.”\n<\/p>\n
A glance on this
\npara would suggest the scope of order under Section 11 to be passed
\nby the Chief Justice or his Designate.  In so far as the issues
\nregarding territorial jurisdiction and the existence of the
\narbitration agreement are concerned, the Chief Justice or his
\nDesignate has to decide those issues because otherwise the
\narbitration can never proceed.  Thus the Chief Justice has to decide
\nabout the territorial jurisdiction and also whether there exists an
\narbitration agreement between the parties and whether such party has
\napproached the court for appointment of the Arbitrator.  The Chief
\nJustice has to examine as to whether the claim is a dead one or in
\nthe sense whether the parties have already concluded the transaction
\nand have recorded satisfaction of their mutual rights and obligations
\nor whether the parties concerned have recorded their satisfaction
\nregarding the financial claims.  In examining this if the <\/p>\n
parties have
\nrecorded their satisfaction regarding the financial claims, there
\nwill be no question of any issue remaining.  It is in this sense that
\nthe Chief Justice has to examine as to whether their remains anything
\nto be decided between the parties in respect of the agreement and
\nwhether the parties are still at issue on any such matter.  If the
\nChief Justice does not, in the strict sense, decide the issue, in
\nthat event it is for him to locate such issue and record his
\nsatisfaction that such issue exists between the parties.  It is only
\nin that sense that the finding on a live issue is given.  Even at the
\ncost of repetition we must state that it is only for the purpose of
\nfinding out whether the arbitral procedure has to be started that the
\nChief Justice has to record satisfaction that their remains a live
\nissue in between the parties.  The same thing is about the limitation
\nwhich is always a mixed question of law and fact.  The Chief Justice
\nonly has to record his satisfaction that prima facie the issue has
\nnot become dead by the lapse of time or that any party to the
\nagreement has not slept over its rights beyond the time permitted by
\nlaw to agitate those issues covered by the agreement.  It is for this
\nreason that it was pointed out in the above para that it would be
\nappropriate sometimes to leave the question regarding the live claim
\nto be decided by the Arbitral Tribunal.  All that he has to do is to
\nrecord his satisfaction that the parties have not closed their rights
\nand the matter has not been barred by limitation.  Thus, where the
\nChief Justice comes to a finding that there exists a live issue, then
\nnaturally this finding would include a finding that the respective
\nclaims of the parties have not become barred by limitation.\n<\/p>\n
In
\n\tview of the above, and particularly, the appointment of Shri
\n\tN.B.Desai, Chartered Accountant, as the sole Arbitrator by the
\n\trespondents meaning thereby, there exist dispute which is required
\n\tto be referred to Arbitration and even otherwise, the dispute with
\n\trespect to settlement of accounts of respective partnership firm is
\n\trequired to be referred to Arbitration. In view of the respective
\n\tArbitration clause in the partnership deed of the respective
\n\tpartnership firms, the dispute is required to be referred to
\n\tArbitration and for which, the Arbitrator is to be appointed as
\n\tthere is no consensus between the petitioner and the respondent with
\n\trespect to appointment of Arbitrator. As such, petitioner is
\n\tjustified in not accepting the  appointment of Shri N.B.Desai,
\n\tChartered Accountant as sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute
\n\tbetween the parties as the said Shri N.B.Desai, who is the Chartered
\n\tAccountant of the respective firm and he himself has audited the
\n\tbooks of accounts of the respective partnership firm and is getting
\n\tremuneration from the partnership firms and therefore, he would have
\n\tpecuniary and other bias.\n<\/p>\n
In
\n\tview of the above and for the reasons stated above, all these
\n\tpetitions are allowed and disputes between the petitioner and the
\n\trespective respondents are referred to the Arbitration and
\n\taccordingly Hon’ble Mr.Justice C.K.Buch, (Retired),  residing at 20\n<\/p>\n
\t– Judges Bungalow, Nr. Lad Society, Premchand Nagar Road, Vastrapur,
\n\tAhmedabad: 380 054 is hereby appointed as sole Arbitrator to
\n\tadjudicate and decide the dispute between the petitioner and the
\n\trespective respondents, more particularly, with respect to the
\n\tsettlement of account of the respective respondent No.1
\n\tpartnership firm. The name of the sole Arbitrator is opposed by the
\n\tlearned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties. It
\n\tis hoped and expected that the sole Arbitrator appointed to
\n\tadjudicate and decide and dispute between the parties will declare
\n\tthe award within a period of 1 (one) year from today and all
\n\tconcerned are directed to cooperate with the sole Arbitrator in
\n\tadjudication and deciding the dispute between the parties and
\n\tArbitrator shall declare the award within the stipulated time stated
\n\therein above.\n<\/p>\n
All
\n\tthese petitions are accordingly allowed. No costs.\n<\/p>\n
(M.R.SHAH,
\nJ.)<\/p>\n
(ashish)<\/p>\n
\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court Sudip vs Ramniklal on 22 January, 2010 Author: M.R. Shah,&Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print IAAP\/68\/2009 14\/ 14 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD PETN. UNDER ARBITRATION ACT No. 68 of 2009 With PETN. UNDER ARBITRATION ACT No. 69 of 2009 To PETN. UNDER ARBITRATION ACT No. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[16,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-210700","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSudip vs Ramniklal on 22 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sudip-vs-ramniklal-on-22-january-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sudip vs Ramniklal on 22 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sudip-vs-ramniklal-on-22-january-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-01-21T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-10-29T14:08:20+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"18 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sudip-vs-ramniklal-on-22-january-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sudip-vs-ramniklal-on-22-january-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sudip vs Ramniklal on 22 January, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-01-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-10-29T14:08:20+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sudip-vs-ramniklal-on-22-january-2010\"},\"wordCount\":3477,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Gujarat High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sudip-vs-ramniklal-on-22-january-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sudip-vs-ramniklal-on-22-january-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sudip-vs-ramniklal-on-22-january-2010\",\"name\":\"Sudip vs Ramniklal on 22 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-01-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-10-29T14:08:20+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sudip-vs-ramniklal-on-22-january-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sudip-vs-ramniklal-on-22-january-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sudip-vs-ramniklal-on-22-january-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sudip vs Ramniklal on 22 January, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Sudip vs Ramniklal on 22 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sudip-vs-ramniklal-on-22-january-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sudip vs Ramniklal on 22 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sudip-vs-ramniklal-on-22-january-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-01-21T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-10-29T14:08:20+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"18 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sudip-vs-ramniklal-on-22-january-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sudip-vs-ramniklal-on-22-january-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sudip vs Ramniklal on 22 January, 2010","datePublished":"2010-01-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-10-29T14:08:20+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sudip-vs-ramniklal-on-22-january-2010"},"wordCount":3477,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Gujarat High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sudip-vs-ramniklal-on-22-january-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sudip-vs-ramniklal-on-22-january-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sudip-vs-ramniklal-on-22-january-2010","name":"Sudip vs Ramniklal on 22 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-01-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-10-29T14:08:20+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sudip-vs-ramniklal-on-22-january-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sudip-vs-ramniklal-on-22-january-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sudip-vs-ramniklal-on-22-january-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sudip vs Ramniklal on 22 January, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/210700","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=210700"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/210700\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=210700"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=210700"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=210700"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}