Pranav Singh & Anr. Vs Atoshi Mustafi

Calcutta High Court 12 Jun 2018 AP 16 of 2018 (2018) 06 CAL CK 0036
Bench: Single Bench
Result Published
Acts Referenced

Judgement Snapshot

Case Number

AP 16 of 2018

Hon'ble Bench

ASHIS KUMAR CHAKRABORTY, J

Advocates

Siddartha Banerjee, Anuran Samanta, S. Sarkar

Final Decision

Disposed Of

Acts Referred
  • Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 9, 11(6), 21

Judgement Text

Translate:

The Court : This is an application under Sub-section (6) of Section 11 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short, ""the Act of 1996""). It

appears that the disputes between the parties arise out of the affairs of the partnership firm, namely, Opium Bar-cum-Restaurant (hereinafter referred

to as ‘the firm’) of which they are the partners.

Admittedly, wayback on September 14, 2015 the present petitioners moved an application, under Section 9 of the Act of 1996, against the respondent

before the learned District Judge, North 24-Parganas and obtained an ex parte order restraining the present respondent from transferring the licence

or changing the management or business of the firm and withdrawing any money

deposited in any bank in the name of the firm till November 18, 2015. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the said ex parte order dated

September 14, 2015 has since been extended from time to time and the same is still in force. However, no copy of the extension order has been

disclosed in this application.

The arbitration agreement between the parties is not in dispute. From the notice dated October 23, 2017 issued by the petitioners to the respondent

under Section 21 of the Act of 1996 and the reply thereto by the present respondent, it appears that the disputes between the parties is whether, the

respondent is seeking to oust the petitioners from the business of the said firm or vice-versa and whether, either of the parties is entitled to receive any

money from the other on account of his/her share of profit of the business of the partnership firm.

Accordingly, Mr. Partha Pratim Roy, Advocate of Bar Association (Room No. 11), is appointed as the sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the above disputes

between the parties.The learned Arbitrator will be free to fix his remuneration and to engage the necessary staff for conducting the arbitral

proceeding. The fees of the Arbitrator and the remuneration of the staff to be engaged by the Arbitrator shall be borne by the parties in equal share.

With the above directions, AP No.16 of 2018 stands disposed of. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.Urgent certified website copies of this

order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.The parties and the learned Arbitrator shall act on a

copy of certified copy of this order.

From The Blog
Madras High Court to Hear School’s Plea Against State Objection to RSS Camp on Campus
Feb
07
2026

Court News

Madras High Court to Hear School’s Plea Against State Objection to RSS Camp on Campus
Read More
Delhi High Court Quashes Ban on Medical Students’ Inter-College Migration, Calls Rule Arbitrary
Feb
07
2026

Court News

Delhi High Court Quashes Ban on Medical Students’ Inter-College Migration, Calls Rule Arbitrary
Read More