Bombay High Court
Murad Sharifbhai Dodhia vs Umed Amirali Dodhia And 5 Ors. And Harish ... on 25 June, 2021
Author: G.S. Patel
Bench: G.S. Patel
31-IAL-10628-2021 IN ARBPL-5174-2021.DOC
Arun
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 10628 OF 2021
IN
ARBITRATION PETITION (L) NO. 5174 OF 2021
Murad Sharifbhai Dodhia ...Applicant
In the matter between
Murad Sharifbhai Dodhia ...Petitioner
Versus
Umed Amirali Dodhia & Ors ...Respondents
And Harish Popatbhai Bharwad ...Proposed Respondent No.7 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1274 OF 2021 IN ARBITRATION PETITION (L) NO. 6742 OF 2021 Mustak Umedali Hamid ...Applicant In the matter between Mustak Umedali Hamid ...Petitioner Versus Umed Amirali Dodhia & Ors ...Respondents And Harish Popatbhai Bharwad ...Prop Respondent No.7 Page 1 of 5 25th June 2021 ::: Uploaded on - 28/06/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 18/09/2021 03:45:58 ::: 31-IAL-10628-2021 IN ARBPL-5174-2021.DOC Mr Karl Tamboly, with Gaurav Agarwal and Akshit Dedhia, i/b Wadia Ghandy & Co, for the Petitioner in ARBPL/6742/2021 and for Respondent No.2 in ARBPL/5174/2021. Mr Simil Purohit, with Vibhav Krishna, Tahir Prande and Devang Lakhotia, i/b Juris Consillis, for the Petitioner/Applicant in IAL/10628/2021 in ARBPL/5174/2021 and for Respondent No.2, in IA/1274/2021 in ARBPL/6742/2021 Mr Onkar Chandurkar, with Neha Patil, i/b Akshay Vijay Kamble, for Respondent No.3 in IAL/10628/2021 in ARBPL/5174/2021 and IA/1274/2021 in ARBPL/6742/2021 Mr Sarosh Damania, with Jayashri Manjrekar, i/b Madhura Pawar, for Respondent No. 1 in ARBPL/5174/2021 and for Respondent No. 5 in ARBPL/6742/2021.
CORAM: G.S. PATEL, J (Through Video Conferencing) DATED: 25th June 2021 PC:-
INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 10628 OF 2021 IN ARBITRATION PETITION (L) NO. 5174 OF 2021 :
1. Heard through video conferencing.
2. There is a considerable delay on the part of the Petitioner. It is entirely unexplained. The Petitioner complains of an alleged 'termination' of his partnership, and then complains that the contesting Respondents reconstituted the 4th Respondent's firm.
3. Mr Purohit argues that the Partnership Deed has no provision for a unilateral "termination" even if this is to be read as an expulsion from partnership. Section 33 of the Partnership Act makes Page 2 of 5 25th June 2021 ::: Uploaded on - 28/06/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 18/09/2021 03:45:58 ::: 31-IAL-10628-2021 IN ARBPL-5174-2021.DOC it clear that a partner can be expelled or removed from partnership only in the manner the Partnership Deed provides.
4. The Partnership Deed (there are more than one) of 5th June 2018 says that the partnership is at will. It can be dissolved or reconstituted at any time but only by unanimous consent of all partners. It goes on to say that it is not open to any one of the partners to dissolve the firm.
5. Mr Purohit points out that, despite this, the contesting Respondents purported to "terminate" the Petitioner as a partner.
6. However compelling Mr Purohit's arguments may be in law, the fact of the matter is that the so-called termination was of 8th April 2019, more than two years ago. In April 2019, no one could have taken the ground that there was a pandemic and a lockdown and therefore the Petitioner could not move court. There was no pandemic or lockdown in April 2019. The first lockdown was not until a year later, in April 2020.
7. The firm was reconstituted on 2nd August 2019, again at the time when there was no lockdown. There was a further Deed of Admission and a Retirement Deed of 7th March 2020.
8. The present Petition was filed only on 22nd February 2021, just before the onset of the second lockdown. In both lockdowns (2020 and 2021), Courts were functioning, albeit in a somewhat restricted fashion.Page 3 of 5
25th June 2021 ::: Uploaded on - 28/06/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 18/09/2021 03:45:58 ::: 31-IAL-10628-2021 IN ARBPL-5174-2021.DOC
9. This entire delay is unexplained. In particular, the Petitioner does not explain how, after 8th April 2019, he allowed this state of affairs to continue with no legal action from his side right up to 22nd February 2021.
10. Mr Purohit's only answer is to say that the entire action of the contesting Respondents is contrary to law. That will be considered at an appropriate stage, but it will not overcome the problems caused by the Petitioner's own delay and his utter failure to explain the causes of that delay. That delay militates against the grant of ad- interim relief. Apart from anything else, a slew of other rights have been created since 8th April 2019, and the Petitioner stood by and let these happen. He cannot now seek urgent ad-interim relief.
11. No ad-interim relief.
12. There is a preliminary Reply of Respondents Nos. 1 and 5. They will be entitled to file a further Affidavit in Reply on or before 9th July 2021. Affidavit in Rejoinder, if any, is to be filed and served on or before 23rd July 2021.
13. List the Petition for hearing and final disposal on 29th July 2021.
Page 4 of 525th June 2021 ::: Uploaded on - 28/06/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 18/09/2021 03:45:58 ::: 31-IAL-10628-2021 IN ARBPL-5174-2021.DOC INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1274 OF 2021 IN ARBITRATION PETITION (L) NO. 6742 OF 2021 :
14. The Interim Application seeks to add the Respondent to the Interim Application as the 7th Respondent to the Petition. Leave granted. Amendment to be carried out on or before 30th June 2021 without need of re-verification. Here, the Petitioner is represented by Mr Tamboly and he has come to court on a different cause of action. Today, I make no assessment of the merits of the rival contentions in this Arbitration Petition.
15. List this matter for ad-interim reliefs on 2nd July 2021.
16. All concerned will act on production of an ordinary copy of this order.
(G. S. PATEL, J) Page 5 of 5 25th June 2021 ::: Uploaded on - 28/06/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 18/09/2021 03:45:58 :::