Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/13 vs Manash Kamal Bezboruah And 13 Ors on 28 January, 2026
Page No.# 1/13
GAHC010197182025
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : CRP/120/2025
M/S BOKAHOLA TEA COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED AND 2 ORS
A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE INDIAN COMPANIES ACT, 1956
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT TARAJAN, JORHAT-785001, ASSAM,
INDIA THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, SHRI PRABHAT KAMAL
BEZBORUAH
2: M/S KASOJAN TEA COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED
A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE INDIAN COMPANIES ACT 1956
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT TARAJAN
JORHAT-785001
ASSAM
INDIA THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
SHRI PRABHAT KAMAL BEZBORUAH
3: M/S BOKAHOLA INVESTMENT PRIVATE LIMITED
A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE INDIAN COMPANIES ACT 1956
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT TARAJAN
JORHAT-785001
ASSAM
INDIA THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
SHRI PRABHAT KAMAL BEZBORUA
VERSUS
MANASH KAMAL BEZBORUAH AND 13 ORS
SON OF LATE I.K. BEZBORUAH, RESIDENT OF A-96, MADHUBAN (NEAR
NIRMAN VIHAR) OFF VIKAS MARG, NEW DELHI-110092, INDIA
2:ESTATE OF LATE DR. NIL KAMAL BEZBORUAH
SON OF LATE CHANDRA KAMAL BEZBORUAH
A T ROAD
TARAJAN
JORHAT-785001
ASSAM
Page No.# 2/13
INDIA REPRESENTED BY SHRI PRABHAT KAMAL BEZBORUAH AND SHRI
KISHORE KAMAL BEZBORUAH
3:M/S BOLOMA TEA COMPANY
A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM CONSTITUTED UNDER THE INDIAN
PARTNERSHIP ACT
1932 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT TARAJAN
JORHAT-785001
ASSAM
INDIA
4:PRABHAT KAMAL BEZBORUAH
SON OF LATE DR. N K BEZBORUAH
RESIDENT OF A T ROAD
TARAJAN
JORHAT-785001
ASSAM
INDIA
5:KISHORE KAMAL BEZBORUAH
SON OF LATE DR. N K BEZBORUAH
RESIDENT OF A T ROAD
TARAJAN
JORHAT-785001
ASSAM
INDIA
6:M/S SHARAD BAJAJ AND ASSOCIATES
CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR MR SHARAD
AGARWAL
CHAMBER ROAD
JORHAT-785001
ASSAM
7:M/S G. SANYAL AND CO.
GROUND FLOOR
TEMPLE CHAMBERS
6
OLD POST OFFICE STREET
KOLKATA-700001
8:ESTATE OF LATE DR. AMALA BEZBORUAH
THROUGH THE EXECUTOR/ADMINISTRATOR
VISHRAM
5
DAMODAR DEV PATH
OFF MONALISA PATH
OFF MOTHER TERESA AVENUE
Page No.# 3/13
GUWAHATI-781024
ASSAM
INDIA
9:DHIRENDRA NATH BEZBORUAH
SON OF LATE SURENDRA NATH BEZBORUAH
RESIDENT OF SHANTI
134
MANIRAM DEWAN ROAD
CHANDMARI
GUWAHATI-781003
ASSAM
INDIA
10:MANU KASHYAP
SON OF LATE RAMKAMAL BEZBORUAH
BEHIND SBI DISPUR BRANCH
SOCHIV ALAY
P.O GUWAHATI-781006
11:SMT. ARUNA BEZBORUAH
WIFE OF LATE RAMKAMAL BEZBORUAH
BEHIND SBI DISPUR BRANCH
SOCHIV ALAYA
P.O GUWAHATI-781006
12:SMT ADITI DAS
D/O LATE RAMKAMAL BEZBORUAH
C/O SHRI MANU KASHYAP
BEHIND SBI DISPUR BRANCH
SOCHIV ALAYA
P.O GUWAHATI-781006
13:SMT UTPALA BEZBORUAH
D/O LATE RAMKAMAL BEZBORUAH
C/O MR. BALE TAKHEL
HOUSE NO 57
KWAKEITHEL MAYAIKOIBI
IMPHAL
MANIPUR-79500
14:ESTATE OF LATE SMT. SHARADA BEZBORUAH
THROUGH HER LEGAL HEIRS SHRI PRABHAT KAMAL BEZBORUAH AND
SHRI KISHORE KAMAL BEZBORUAH
A T ROAD
TARAJAN
JORHAT-785001
ASSAM
Page No.# 4/13
INDI
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S C KEYAL, MR. P DIDWANIA,P UPADHAYA,MS. R
HUSSAIN,MS. NITUMA KAKATI,KAUSHIK JAIN,M DEKA
Advocate for the Respondent : MR. P D NAIR (R1), MR. S K BEZBORUAH (R-5),MR A
BHATRA(R-4),MR. A SANDILYA(R-4),MR. B D DEKA (R-4),MR S R A NASER (R1),MR G
ALAM (R1)
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA
ORDER
Date : 28.01.2026
1. Heard Mr. D. K. Mishra, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. K. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. A. Phukan, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 as well as Mr. A. Sandilya, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 3 and 4.
2. On 6th January 2026, the petitioners have filed an affidavit regarding service of notice upon respondent Nos. 7, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 along with the affidavit, the postal track consignment report of notices sent to the aforesaid respondents has been annexed. Perusal of the same shows that the notices have been duly delivered to the addressee. In view of the said affidavit, the notices issued to respondent Nos. 7, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 are held to be duly served. It is further stated that respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 have entered their appearance in this case and respondent Nos. 2 and 14 are represented by respondent Nos. 4 and 5, who have also entered their appearance.
3. As regards the respondent Nos. 6 and 8 are concerned, the notices issued to the said respondents have not returned. Hence, the petitioners are directed to take fresh steps for issuance of notice on the said respondents by Page No.# 5/13 speed post as well as by usual mode within seven days from the date of this order, returnable on 12th February, 2026.
4. This order pertains to the question of maintainability of the instant civil revision petition raised by the respondent No. 1 in view of the provisions contained in Section 16 (5) and Section 16(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
5. The respondent No. 1, namely, Manash Kamal Bezboruah, by filing an affidavit-in-opposition on 20th December, 2025 in the instant civil revision petition has raised the preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the instant revision petition. The respondent No. 1 while raising the question of maintainability of the instant civil revision petition by filing affidavit-in-opposition dated 20.12.2025 has also sought for leave of this Court that in the event, this Court decides to examine the issues on merit, the respondent No. 1 may be granted an opportunity to file a more detailed affidavit-in-opposition against the petition filed by the petitioners.
6. For dealing with the question of maintainability of the instant revision petition, the relevant facts which may be necessary are set out as follows.
7. The respondent No. 1, as plaintiff, had filed a suit bearing Title Suit No. 38/2012 before the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jorhat against the respondents of this case as well as the petitioners Nos. 1, 2, 3 claiming, inter alia, the relief of rendition of accounts in respect of defendant Nos. 6, 7 and 8 companies.
8. During pendency of the aforesaid suit, the respondent No. 5, Kishore Page No.# 6/13 Kamal Bezboruah had filed an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before the trial court praying for referring the matter to the arbitration. The trial court by its order dated 07.08.2014 rejected the application filed by respondent No. 5 (defendant No. 4 in this suit). Thereafter, the respondent No. 5 preferred a civil revision petition which was registered as CRP No. 185/2015 before this Court impugning the order dated 07.08.2014 passed by the Trial Court in Title Suit No. 38/2012. However, by its order dated 01.11.2021 passed in CRP No. 185/2015, this Court affirmed the order of the Trial Court and dismissed the civil division petition moved by the respondent No.
5.
9. Thereafter, against the order dated 01.11.2021 passed by this Court in CRP No. 185/2015, the respondent No. 5 preferred the Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.10445/2022 under Article 136 of the Constitution of India before the Supreme Court of India. The Apex Court, by its order dated 21.11.2024 disposed of the aforesaid SLP by referring the parties to the arbitration. The Apex Court also appointed Justice (Retired) Mr. B. P. Katakey as sole arbitrator.
10. Thereafter, the petitioner companies preferred an application, before the learned arbitrator, under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Order 1 Rule 10 as well as under Section 151of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, on 06.05.2025, praying for striking out their names from the arrays of parties. By the order dated 04.08.20025, the sole arbitrator rejected the application filed by the present petitioners and the said order has been impugned in the instant civil revision petition.
11. Mr. A. Phukan, learned counsel for respondent No. 1, who has raised the plea of maintainability of the instant civil revision petition, has submitted that Page No.# 7/13 the petitioner's company had wrongly filed the application dated 06.05.2025 under Order 7 Rule 11 and under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. He submits that the said application, may be considered for all purpose, an application under Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
12. The learned counsel for respondent No. 1 submits that the matter in dispute was referred to arbitration by the Apex Court, by its order dated 21.11.2024, passed in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 10445/2022. He submits that the notice of the aforesaid SLP was duly served on all the above-named petitioners. However, the petitioner companies chose not to object the application filed by the respondent No. 5 before the Apex Court as well as the order passed by the Apex Court referring the matter to the arbitration, therefore, they are now barred by estoppel, waiver, and acquiescence from raising the objection regarding arbitrability of the dispute before the learned Arbitral Tribunal.
13. He submits that the present civil revision petition is barred by the provisions of Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. He submits that when the application dated 06.05.2025 filed by the present petitioners before the learned arbitral tribunal, which is to be treated as an application under Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 challenging the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal has been dismissed by the arbitral tribunal, the only remedy for the aggrieved party is to wait till making of an arbitral award by the learned arbitral tribunal and then to challenge the same under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
14. He submits that the non-obstante clause in Section 5 of the Arbitration Page No.# 8/13 and Conciliation Act, 1996 makes it abundant clear that save and except as provided in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 the judicial authority shall not intervene in the matters governed by Part-I of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. He submits that the High Court should not invoke its power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and interject the arbitral process at the initial stage. In support of his submission, the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1has cited a ruling of the Apex Court in the case of " Deep Industries Ltd. v. ONGC" reported in "(2020) 15 SCC 706" as well as the case of "Bhaven Construction Vs. Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Limited " reported in "(2022) 1 SCC 75".
15. To emphasize his contention that the only remedy available against rejection of an objection as to the jurisdiction of arbitral tribunal by the said tribunal is to make an application for setting aside the award after the award, as provided under Section 16(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 has also cited the observations made by the Law Commission of India in its 176th report on the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Bill, 2001. The learned counsel for respondent No. 1 has accordingly prayed for dismissal of this civil revision petition on the ground of non-maintainability in view of the provisions contained in Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
16. On the other hand, Mr. D. K. Mishra, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners has objected to the plea of non-maintainability of the instant civil revision petition in view of the provisions contained in Section 5 as well as Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. He submits that the jurisdiction conferred upon High Courts under Article 226/227 of the Page No.# 9/13 Constitution of India is a part of inviolable basic structure of our Constitution and same cannot be ousted by statutory provisions. In support of his submission, he has cited a ruling of the Apex Court in the case of " L. Chandra Kumar Vs. Union of India and Others"reported in "1997 (3) SCC 261.
17. He submits that the petitioners has challenged the order passed by the learned arbitral tribunal rejecting the objection as regards to its jurisdiction in subjecting the present petitioners to the arbitral proceedings on the ground of patent lack of inherent jurisdiction as well as on the ground of perversity in the impugned order. He submits that when the patent lack of inherent jurisdiction and the perversity of the order passed by the arbitral tribunal is apparent on the face of it, the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of Constitution of India is not ousted by the non-obstante clause contained in Section 5 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 as well as by Section 16 of the said Act. In support of his submission, he has cited following rulings of the Apex Court:-
(i)"Punjab State Power Corporation Limited Vs. Emta Coal Limited and Another" reported in (2020) 17 SCC 93"
(ii)"Deep Industries Ltd. v. ONGC" (supra).
18. He submits that the petitioners had chosen not to appear before the Apex Court in the SLP filed by the respondent No. 5and the said SLP was disposed of by the Apex Court by its order dated 21.11.2024 on the basis of the consent of the parties who were present before it. Hence, the said order is applicable only to those parties who appeared before the Apex Court in the aforesaid SLP. He submits that the order of the Apex Court was passed in the aforesaid SLP on the basis of the consent of the learned counsel for the parties who appeared before the Apex Court as well as in terms of the Clause 5 of the Page No.# 10/13 Partnership Deed dated 16.11.1976. He submits that the present petitioners were not signatories to the said partnership deed containing the arbitral clause therein. He submits that the Apex Court, in its aforesaid order, has not made any observation regarding invoking of the doctrine of group of companies to subject the present petitioners to the arbitral proceeding. However, the Trial Court has observed that the contention of the present petitioners that they are not parties to the partnership deed containing arbitration clause was settled by the Apex Court in the aforesaid order. He submits that this observation by the learned Arbitral Tribunal is perverse, therefore, the petitioners can invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
19. The learned senior counsel for the petitioners submits that while disposing of the objection raised by the present petitioners before the learned Arbitral Tribunal regarding subjecting the present petitioners to the arbitral proceeding, the learned Arbitral Tribunal did not discuss anything so as to justify the applicability of the doctrine of group of companies vis-a-vis the present petitioners apart from stating that the Apex Court's order of referring the dispute to arbitration, has settled the issue. He submits that this observation of the learned Arbitral Tribunal is perverse, therefore, the Arbitral Tribunal lacks inherent jurisdiction to proceed with the arbitral proceeding by subjecting the present petitioners to same and as the petitioner has challenged the impugned order of the Arbitral Tribunal on the basis of lack of inherent jurisdiction and perversity, this Court does have the jurisdiction to entertain the instant civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In support of his submission, the learned senior counsel for the petitioners has cited following rulings: -
(i) "Mohd. Akram Ansari Vs. Chief Election Officer &Ors" reported in "(2008) Page No.# 11/13 2 SCC 95".
(ii) "Oil And Natural Gas Corporation Ltd Vs. M/S. Discovery Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. and Anr." reported in "(2022) 8 SCC 42.
(iii) "Cox And Kings Ltd Vs. Sap India Pvt. Ltd " reported in "(2024) 4 SCC
1.
20. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides and have gone through the materials available on records. I have also gone through the rulings cited by learned counsel for both sides in support of their respective submissions.
21. Presently, we are only concerned about the issue of maintainability of the instant civil revision petition raised by the respondent No. 1. We have seen in the foregoing paragraphs that the main contention of the learned counsel for respondent No. 1 in raising the plea of maintainability of the instant civil revision petition is that the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, is a complete code in itself, and Section 5 of the said Code excludes judicial intervention as regards the matter covered under Part-I of the said Act, save and except, where such judicial intervention has been provided for. His plea that the provisions contained in Section 16 (5) and Section 16(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 excludes any judicial intervention when an objection regarding the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal is rejected by the tribunal till the award is passed has some force in it. However, when the rejection order by the tribunal regarding objection to its jurisdiction is patently perverse, and there is a patent lack of inherent jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal, the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India cannot be ousted. In this regard, the observation made by the Apex Court in the case of Deep Industries Ltd. v. ONGC (supra) are relevant and same is quoted herein below:-
Page No.# 12/13 "17. This being the case, there is no doubt whatsoever that if petitions were to be filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution against orders passed in appeals under Section 37, the entire arbitral process would be derailed and would not come to fruition for many years. At the same time, we cannot forget that Article 227 is a constitutional provision which remains untouched by the non obstante clause of Section 5 of the Act. In these circumstances, what is important to note is that though petitions can be filed under Article 227 against judgments allowing or dismissing first appeals under Section 37 of the Act, yet the High Court would be extremely circumspect in interfering with the same, taking into account the statutory policy as adumbrated by us hereinabove so that interference is restricted to orders that are passed which are patently lacking in inherent jurisdiction".
22. Similarly, the observation made by the Apex Court in the case of " Punjab State Power Corporation Limited Vs. Emta Coal Limited and Another (supra)" is also relevant in this regard, and same is quoted herein below: -
"4. We are of the view that a foray to the writ court from a Section 16 application being dismissed by the arbitrator can only be if the order passed is so perverse that the only possible conclusion is that there is a patent lack in inherent jurisdiction. A patent lack of inherent jurisdiction requires no argument whatsoever -- it must be the perversity of the order that must stare one in the face."
23. The petitioners have impugned the order passed by the arbitral tribunal on the ground of lack of inherent jurisdiction as well as on the ground of alleged perversity in the impugned order to the extent that the tribunal has observed that by the order of the Apex Court, passed in the Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 10445/2022, it has left nothing for the arbitral tribunal to decide as to whether a non-signatory is bound by arbitration agreement or not. However, since the petitioners have raised the plea that the Apex Court has referred only those parties who had appeared before it in the aforesaid SLP and had consented to referring the matter to the arbitration and since prima facie, it appears that in the order of the Apex Court, it has not discussed anything regarding invoking the doctrine of group of companies to bring the petitioners within the ambit of the arbitral proceeding, hence, this Court, in the light of the Page No.# 13/13 observations made by the Apex Court in its judgments discussed in paragraphs 21 and 22 of this order, is of considered opinion that it does not lack jurisdiction, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to examine the contention raised by the petitioners as to whether the dismissal of the prayer regarding jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal to subject the petitioners to the arbitral proceeding suffers from a patent lack of inherent jurisdiction or not, or whether it is perverse or not.
24. Since the petitioners have raised the plea of lack of inherent jurisdiction, as well as of perversity on the part of arbitral tribunal in passing the impugned order and since same cannot be totally negated at this stage, the jurisdiction of this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to examine the said issues is not ousted.
25. In view of the discussion made and reasons stated in the foregoing paragraphs, the objection raised by the respondent No. 1 regarding maintainability of the instant civil revision petition is rejected.
26. Let this matter be listed again on 12th February 2026 for hearing.
27. The respondent No. 1 may file an additional affidavit-in-opposition if he desired to do so before the next date fixed with a copy of this same furnished to the other side in advance.
28. List this matter accordingly.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant