Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:13872 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ARBR No. 35 of 2024 Smt Sheela Sharma W/o Dinesh Kumar Sharma Aged About 58 Years Occupation - Business, R/o B-604, Walfort Enclave, Phase-2 Near Ramkrishna Hospital Pachpedi Naka Raipur (C.G.) Pin 492001 ... Applicant versus
Legal Reasoning
Mr Satyendra Kumar Pradhan S/o Shri Sita Ram Pradhan Aged About 35 Years Occupation - Business, R/o LIG 322 M P H B Colony, Deendayal Upadhyay Nagar Daganiya Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant : Mr. Anand Mohan Tiwari, Advocate (through video- conferencing). For Respondent(s) : Mr Harpreet Singh, Advocate. PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 22.03.2025 1. This is an application under Section 11 (5) and (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of an Arbitrator. 2. The facts, in brief, as projected by the applicant are that the respondent being the First Party, and petitioner is a second party has entered into a registered partnership deed on the 6th of July 2016 for carrying the business name and style of "Arpita Hospital" situated Near Swargiya 2 Virendra Bahadur Government College Saraipali District Mahasamund (C.G.). Since the inception of the partnership respondent have already been aware of the fact, that the petitioner has been running her educational institutions and other educational and social activities and respondent are already active and have vast experience in the field of contracted business. Therefore, in terms of the agreement, respondent and petitioner both have mutually agreed to invest an equal amount for the establishment to run the business. Hence in terms of the agreement, respondent have been mutually authorized being a sole authority to run the business of the partnership and maintain the accounts thereof. On June 2018, the petitioner wishes to know about the investment of funds invested by both the partners and furnished the details of the amount taken by respondent from the petitioner but the respondent told that due to previous default of repayment of the loan he cannot able to get a loan from the bank and requested the petitioner for making guarantee for the loan applied for in the name of Arpita Hospital and promised to the petitioner that the said loan amount would be invested by him to the contracted business and later on respondent will pay the loan amount to the bank. In these circumstances under the bona-fide belief petitioner was given guarantee to the loan proposal made by respondent. But after declaring respondent as a defaulter for repayment of the said loan, petitioner knows the fact that respondent did not invest the actual amount into the contracted business but misused the same for his personal enjoyment and benefits which resulted in a huge loss to petitioner as well as in her other and the contracted business and reputation of petitioner who further to save her goodwill trying to deposit some EMI of the loan amount taken by respondent, thereafter in such circumstances, petitioner enquired about the contracted business and found that entire medical equipment and account has not been audited and properly maintained by respondent and 3 the entire amount received at the business has been kept by respondent and not explained to petitioner despite repeatedly asked for the same. 3. Mr. Anand Mohan Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant submits that that the criminal activity of respondent was reported to the police station Saraipali C.G. by which the police station lodge an FIR no-351/2018 under section 420 & 409 against the respondent and further the respondent by making same assertions as promised to the petitioner for his willingness to resolve the dispute filed an application for Anticipatory Bail which was allowed on 13.11.2018 and thereafter the respondent filed WPCR NO 72 OF 2019 which was dismissed on 13.06.2023. However, the details of the entire amount invested by her in the contracted business were told to respondent many times and It was requested and asked by petitioner, that respondent provide information to my party about respondent's share in the business invested by respondent but respondent have not informed till date about the same and avoid to auditing of the account/income/expenditures and other benefits kept by respondent from the business but respondent repeatedly procrastinated and in an evasive manner and verbally sent a proposal on 15.05.2023 through Mr. Sandeep Goswami on 15.05.2023, that respondent will soon inform my party about the amount invested by respondent in the business and the income received from it and pay its share or settle all the disputes between respondent and petitioner. 4.5 That, petitioner was waiting for respondent's promise made through Mr Sandeep Goswami but till 09.12.2023 по response was received from respondent's side and such type of negligent & irresponsible behavior of respondent towards petitioner's request as mentioned earlier and due to such incumbent circumstances, petitioner wrote a letter on 09.12.2023 along with a schedule of amounts to the tune of Rs-13,653,310.05/Rs which has been invested by her in the contracted business and demanding investment made 4 by respondent have received this communication. The Respondent did not respond to it which is in total breach of the agreement as such a dispute has arisen. It is respectfully submitted that apart from the investment of Rs 13,653,310.05/Rs the petitioner also met with the other financial losses i.e., loss of other business, good will in the market and properties towards the breach of the conditions of the partnership deed and suffered from more than 2,48,01,854/- Rs, it is pertinent that the above dispute is purely a civil dispute and the agreement dated 6th of July 2016 provides a mechanism for resolution and settlement of the dispute by way of arbitration but respondent the notices have deliberately avoided following the terms of the said agreement. 4. In the said Agreement clause No-17 is reproduced below for the ready reference to this Hon'ble Court :- "17) In case of any dispute between the partners the matter shall be referred to an arbitrator whose decision shall be acted upon by the partners. The arbitration proceedings shall be carried on under Indian Arbitration Act or any statutory modification thereof." 5. Mr. Harpreet Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent relying on the return filed on behalf of respondent, opposes this arbitration request application, however, he submits that the respondent will have no objection if any Arbitrator is appointed by this Hon’ble Court for resolving the dispute that has arisen between the parties. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 7. A query was put to learned counsel appearing for the parties as to whether they are agreeable for a common name who can be appointed as Arbitrator, learned counsel for the parties submitted that they would have no objection if any retired Judge of this District Court is appointed as the Sole Arbitrator. 5 They further submit that Mr. Ashok Ku. Panda, who is a retired District Judge may be appointed as sole Arbitrator. 8. In view of the above consensus between the learned counsel for the parties, Mr. Ashok Ku. Panda retired District Judge is appointed to act as the sole Arbitrator to resolve the dispute involved in this arbitration request between the parties. 9. The Registry is directed to communicate this order to Mr. Ashok Ku. Panda in the proper address. 10. The remuneration of the Arbitrator shall be settled with the mutual consent of the parties. 11. The arbitration request petition, accordingly, stands allowed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE Preeti