CHAUHAN INFRA DEVELOPERS LLP AND ORSversusLALDHAR SHIVPRASAD CHAUHAN AND ORS.

                                                             1/4                29 ARA-33-2026.DOC




                                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
SAIRAJ
                                             CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SANJAY
KARANDE
Digitally signed by
SAIRAJ SANJAY
                                           ARBITRATION APPEAL NO. 33 OF 2026
KARANDE
Date: 2026.09.19
14:20:14 +0530

                      Chauhan Infra Developers LLP & Others                     … Appellants

                               Versus

                      Laldhar Shivprasad Chauhan & Others                       … Respondents

                                                          _______
                      Mr. Gaurav Srivastav, Ms. Mittal B. Nor and Mr. Nishant Pawar i/b S. K.
                      Srivastav and Co. for Appellants.
                      Adv. M. Ramesh, Mr. Acharya Vijay Anand for Respondents.
                                                          _______


                                                  CORAM        :     ARIF S. DOCTOR, J.
                                                  DATE         :     17th SEPTEMBER 2026.
                      P.C.


                      1. This present Arbitration Appeal is filed under Section 37 of the


                           Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“the Arbitration Act”), and


                           impugns an Order dated 25th February 2026 passed by the District


                           Judge-6, Thane, in an application filed by the Respondent under the


                           provisions of Section 9 of the Arbitration Act.




                      Sairaj
                                         2/4              29 ARA-33-2026.DOC


2. Heard Mr. Srivastav, learned counsel appearing for the Appellants and


     Mr. Ramesh appearing on behalf of the Respondents.


3. Mr. Srivastav points out that the dispute between the parties pertains to


     the dissolution of Respondent No. 1, which is an LLP. He submits that


     the Petitioner and the Respondents are all the partners of Respondent


     No. 1.


4. Mr. Srivastav points out that, even prior to the passing of the impugned


     order, the Tribunal had in an application filed by the Petitioner, under


     the provisions of Section 16, held that the Tribunal did not have


     jurisdiction to grant the relief sought in arbitration, i.e., the


     appointment of a liquidator. He submitted that the Tribunal had held


     that such relief could only be granted by the NCLT, particularly since


     one of the reliefs sought was the appointment of a Liquidator. He


     therefore submitted that, in these circumstances, the impugned order


     ought to be vacated or set aside.




Sairaj
                                        3/4                    29 ARA-33-2026.DOC


5. Mr. Ramesh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent,


     opposes the Appeal. He points out that the Order passed on the Section


     16 application was challenged before this Court and that, by an order


     dated 17th March 2026, this Court permitted the Respondent to file a


     fresh Statement of Claim before the same Arbitral Tribunal. He has


     drawn my attention to paragraphs 9 and 10 of the order dated 17 th


     March 2026, which read as follows:

                 “9. In these circumstances, without expressing any
                 opinion on the merits of the matter, including the
                 enforceability or the alleged lack thereof of Article
                 27(ii), the Petitioner is granted liberty to revisit the
                 Learned Arbitral Tribunal with a specific statement
                 of claim that deals only with the matter of specific
                 relief in terms of Article 27(ii) read with Article 28
                 as alluded to by the Learned Arbitral Tribunal in
                 paragraphs 17 and 18 of the Impugned Order.


                 10. If such a new statement of claim is filed, without
                 this Court having made any comment on the
                 contentions of the respective parties on merits, the
                 Learned Arbitral Tribunal is requested to examine
                 the matter and take a view in accordance with law.”




Sairaj
                                      4/4                  29 ARA-33-2026.DOC


6. Mr. Ramesh further submits that, pursuant to the liberty so granted, a


     fresh Statement of Claim has been filed before the Arbitral Tribunal and


     is presently pending consideration. It is, however, common ground that


     the Respondent has not filed any application under Section 17 of the


     Arbitration Act before the Arbitral Tribunal.


7. I, therefore, dispose of this Arbitration Appeal by directing that the


     impugned Order shall continue to operate only for four weeks from


     today.


8. If the Petitioner files a Section 17 application, the same shall be heard


     and decided on its merits, uninfluenced by observations made in this


     Order.


9. Arbitration Appeal is disposed of. Nothing survives for consideration in


     pending civil/interim applications, if any, and the same stand disposed


     of.


                                                     [ARIF S. DOCTOR, J.]




Sairaj