MEENA DEEPU VASWANIversusSHAILENDRA MOURYA

                                                 1/3              45-ARBAP-213-2024 (OS).DOC




                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                        ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

                      ARBITRATION APPLICATION NO. 213 OF 2024
Meena Deepu Vaswani                                                               ...Applicant
          Versus
Shailendra Mourya                                                                 ...Respondent
                                             _______
Mr. Aayush Pandey (through V.C.) a/w Mr. Gaurav Pandey, for the Applicant.
                                             _______


                                                  CORAM           :       ARIF S. DOCTOR, J.
                                                  DATE            :       13th JANUARY, 2026

P.C.
1.        The present Application has been filed under the provisions of Section 11

of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, by which the Applicant has sought

to invoke arbitration against the Respondent.

2.        Heard learned counsel for the Applicant, who points out that the

Respondent, though served, has not appeared. Having perused the record, I am

satisfied that the Respondent has been duly served and has not entered

appearance.

3.        Learned counsel then invited my attention to a deed of partnership dated

20th June 2018 entered into between the Applicant and the Respondent, in

particular referring to clause 16 of the said agreement, which reads thus:

          "16.     ARBITRATION: If any dispute or difference shall arise between the parties
          hereto touching the business of the Firm or interpretation of any provision hereof or
          otherwise, howsoever relating to the Firm and its business the same shall be refunded
          to arbitration of a common arbitrator if agreed upon, failing which to two arbitrators
          one to be appointed by each party to the dispute and the arbitration shall be governed
          by the Arbitration Act, 1996,"



Vaibhav
                                             2/3              45-ARBAP-213-2024 (OS).DOC



4.        Learned counsel then invited my attention to the notice dated 29 th

February 2024, by which the Applicant has invoked the said arbitration clause

and also suggested the name of the proposed arbitrator. Paragraph 9 of the said

notice reads thus:

      "9.       That in light of the above-mentioned facts and circumstances, our Client
      hereby invokes clause No. 16 of the Deed of Partnership Dated June 20, 2018, executed
      between our Client and you, and proposes the name of Mr. Ketan Arun Dhavle Advocate,
      Bombay High Court as a Sole Arbitrator, for the adjudication of the disputes between you
      and our Client. Additionally, you are hereby notified that, should our Client fail to
      receive a response to this Legal Notice within 30 days, it will be assumed that you have
      no objections to Mr. Ketan Arun Dhavle Advocate, Bombay High Court's appointment as
      Sole Arbitrator pursuant to clause No. 16 of the Partnership Agreement Dated June 20,
      2018, this agreement was made between you and our client to resolve disagreements in
      line with the law."

5.        Learned counsel then places reliance upon the proof of service of the said

notice upon the Respondent and points out that, despite being duly served, no

response to the notice has been forthcoming. In light of this, he submits that

given the existence of an arbitration clause between the parties and also the fact

that arbitration has been duly invoked, this Court, may appoint an arbitrator to

decide the disputes and differences that have arising between the parties under

the deed of partnership mentioned above.

6.        Having heard learned counsel and having perused the record, I am prima

facie satisfied that the existence of a valid arbitration agreement between the

parties, as also the fact that arbitration has been duly invoked in accordance

with law and the Respondent, having not replied, is deemed to have

admitted/accepted the contentions of the Applicant.

7.        Hence, I appoint Ms. Apurva Thipsay to act as Sole Arbitrator in the

matter. The details of Ms. Apurva Thipsay are as follows:



Vaibhav
                                           3/3            45-ARBAP-213-2024 (OS).DOC




              Name: Ms. Apurva Thipsay
              Address: Chambers of Dr. Birendra Saraf,
              302, Oval House, 3rd Floor, British Hotel Lane,
              Opposite Commerce House, Kala Ghoda,
              Fort, Mumbai 400023
              Mobile No: 9882806541
              Email: [email protected]

8.        The Learned Arbitrator shall file requisite disclosure within a period of

two weeks of duly served with this order.

9.        The Arbitration Application is accordingly disposed of.




                                                                [ARIF S. DOCTOR, J.]




Vaibhav