Babasaheb Ambadas Dhawale v. Prakash Ramnarayan Khetawat And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 194 OF 2024 Babasaheb Ambadas Dhawale

...Petitioner

Versus

1. Prakash Ramnarayan Khetawat

2. Mr. Balasaheb Namdeo Pol

3. Mr. Balasaheb Arjunrao Hagawane

4. Mr. Pratap Balasaheb Dhamale

...Respondents

SHRADDHA KAMLESH TALEKAR SHRADDHA KAMLESH TALEKAR Date: 2025.11.18 20:32:13 +0530 Mr. Purushottam G. Chavan a/w Mr. Sachin S. Padaye, Adv. for Petitioner.

Mr. S.L. Shah i/by Shah Legal, Adv. for Respondent No. 1. Mr. Aashay Rabade, for Respondent No. 2.

CORAM

: SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, J.

Date : November 12, 2025 ORDER :

1.

The Petition is seeking reference to arbitration invoking the arbitration agreement contained in the Partnership Deed dated March 7, 2008 ("Partnership Deed"), by which a firm by the name Sai Swami Developers ("Sai Swami") has been constituted. Admittedly, the Petitioner is not a party to the Partnership Deed and is not a partner of the partnership firm. To get over the same, the Petitioner has submitted that another set of arbitration proceedings are currently underway before an arbitrator appointed by a Learned Single Judge of this Court

by an order dated March 30, 2023 in connection with disputes and differences between partners of a firm called D and P Associates. The Petitioner is the partner of D and P Associates and has privity to those arbitration proceedings.

2.

The core submission by the Petitioner is that transactions between D and P Associates and Sai Swami as well as the interconnectedness of partners between the two firms would necessitate roping in D and P Associates into the dispute resolution mechanism currently underway for the firm D and P Associates. 3.

The jurisdiction of this Court is restricted to examining the existence of an arbitration agreement. Evidently, the Petitioner is not a party to the arbitration agreement. The contention raised by the Petitioner would, at best, lead to D and P Associates and its partners being treated as "veritable parties" in respect of the arbitration that is currently underway. The forum for raising such a contention is that the Learned Arbitral Tribunal in those proceedings and not the Section 11 Court to initiate new proceedings relating to the arbitration agreement of another firm.

4.

In these circumstances, leaving it open to the Petitioner to take out such application as he may desire, invoking principles for roping in veritable parties into the proceedings, this Petition is disposed

of. It is entirely up to the Petitioner on how to convince the arbitral tribunal about the inter-connectedness between the two firms and their respective partners in order to rope in the partners of Sai Swami into the dispute resolution mechanism governing D and P Associates. 5.

With the aforesaid observations, the Petition is dismissed as not being maintainable under Section 11 of the Act. 6.

Needless to say, nothing contained in this order is an expression of an opinion on merits of the matter or the relative strength of the parties. All issues on merits are expressly kept open to be agitated before the Arbitral Tribunal appointed hereby. 7.

In view of the disposal of the proceedings, attendant Interim Applications, if any, also stand disposed of. 8.

All actions required to be taken pursuant to this order, shall be taken upon receipt of a downloaded copy as available on this Court's website.

[ SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, J.]