MR. KIRAN KHANDERAO ARADHYEversusMR. SUHAS RAMKUMAR DESHPANDE

                                                                                      1-ARP-116-2026.doc


                                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                            CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION


           Digitally signed
                                              ARBITRATION PETITION NO.116 OF 2026
           by SATISH
           RAMCHANDRA
SATISH     SANGAR
RAMCHANDRA
SANGAR     Date:
           2026.10.07
           19:11:00
           +0530
                                     Mr.Kiran Khanderao Aradhye,                   ]
                                     Age : 45 Years, Occupation : Business,        ]
                                     Partner of Shree Gajanan S.K.Developers       ]
                                     LLP registered under the Limited Liability    ]
                                     Partnership Act,2008,Residing at:Flat No.804, ]
                                     Artemis Co. Operative Hsg. Soc. Ltd.,         ]
                                     Near Suncity, Anandnagar, Sinhagad Road,      ]
                                     Pune.                                         ] ...Petitioner
                                                  Versus
                                     Mr.Suhas Ramkumar Deshpande,                   ]
                                     Age : Adult, Occupation : Business,            ]
                                     Residing at : Plot No.99/B, Nath Prangan,      ]
                                     Opp. Janaki Hotel, Shivajinagar Road,          ]
                                     Garkheda, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar,           ]
                                     431 001.                                       ] ...Respondent
                              ====================================================

                              Mr.Purushottam G. Chavan a/w Advocates for Petitioner.
                              Ms.Anshu Gupta:-
                              Mr.Amit S. Deshpande:-              Advocate for Respondent.

                              ====================================================
                                                       CORAM      :     S. M. MODAK, J.
                                                       DATE       :     6th OCTOBER 2026
                              P. C. :-

                              1.     Heard learned Advocate for Petitioner and learned Advocate for

                              Respondent.

                              2.     In the Petition filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and

                              Satish Sangar                                                           1/5
                                                        1-ARP-116-2026.doc


Conciliation Act, 1996, the issue involved is “whether the dispute can

be referred to Arbitration”. This issue has arisen because the

Respondent has taken an objection that the Petitioner by act of

entering into the Development Agreement with the Society on 5 th

February 2025 has committed a criminal breach of trust and hence, the

dispute cannot be referred to Arbitration. He placed reliance on the

observations in case of Rajia Begum V/s. Barnali Mukherjee.1

3.      Whereas, according to learned Advocate for Petitioner, there is

no criminal breach of trust and the Agreement dated 5 th February 2025

is separate and different from the LLP Agreement dated 25 th July

2022. It is his contention that there is Arbitration clause No.38 in the

said Agreement and as such, the dispute can be referred to the

Arbitration.

4.      About execution of LLP Agreement dated 25th July 2022, there

is no dispute. The Petitioner and the Respondent are the partners and

they have agreed to carry on business on construction in the name and

style as “Shree GajananSK Developers LLP”. It is the case of the

Petitioner that as per the said Agreement, a plot is purchased whereas

the Respondent has not cooperated further and that is why, a dispute

arose and he sent a notice dated 16th January 2026 to the Respondent.

1    2026 SCC OnLine 135

Satish Sangar                                                           2/5
                                                           1-ARP-116-2026.doc


Paragraph No.38 of the said notice calls upon the Respondent to

appoint a suitable Arbitrator for winding up of the LLP. There are two

replies given by the Respondent. They are on Page Nos.33 and 35.

They have raised dispute that the records of Shree Gajanan SK

Developers LLP are in the custody of the Petitioner and the

Respondent has demanded the copies. Admittedly, he has not raised

any dispute about the Arbitration clause.

5.     I have gone through the observations in Rajia Begum (cited

supra). In that case, in one matter, Arbitrator was appointed, whereas

in another matter in between the same parties, it was not appointed

and that is how the matter reached the Supreme Court. The Supreme

Court observed that:-

     “12.       …...mere allegation of fraud simpliciter may not be a
                ground to nullify the arbitration agreement between
                the parties, but where the court finds that there are
                serious allegations of fraud which make a case of
                criminal offence or where the allegations of fraud are
                so complicated, which need to be decided on the basis
                of voluminous evidence, the court can sidetrack the
                arbitration agreement and proceed with the suit…..”.
Finally, the dispute was not referred to Arbitration because there are

serious allegations which goes to the root of the Arbitration

Agreement.

6.     These observations are not applicable to the present matter. The

Satish Sangar                                                              3/5
                                                         1-ARP-116-2026.doc


reason is the Respondent is having a grievance about execution of

separate Agreement dated 5th February 2025. It relates to the adjoining

plot and both of them have decided to take that plot for development

and the grievance is the Petitioner behind back of Respondent has

entered into a separate Agreement to the prejudice of the Respondent.

Whether it is a criminal breach of trust cannot be decided in such a

Petition. In fact, the grievance of Respondent in that behalf can be

raised before the Arbitrator also. There is no grievance that the

Arbitration clause in LLP Agreement dated 25 th July 2022 was

incorporated by playing a fraud.

7.     Hence, a case is made out for referring the dispute to Arbitrator.

Consequently, following order:-

                             -: O R D E R :-

(I)    Shri.R.V.Deshmukh (Retired District & Sessions Judge) is
       hereby appointed as a sole Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the
       disputes and differences between the parties arising out and
       in connection with the matter referred above.
       Office address :- Flat No.59-1302, Future Towers, Amanora
       Part Town, Hadapsar, Pune – 411 028.
       Contact No. :- 9423892389
(II)   The place of arbitration shall be at Pune.
(III) A copy of this order will be communicated to the learned
       sole Arbitrator by the Advocates for the Petitioner within a

Satish Sangar                                                            4/5
                                                            1-ARP-116-2026.doc


       period of one week from the date of upload of this order.
       The Petitioner shall provide the contact and communication
       particulars of the parties to the Arbitral Tribunal along with
       copy of this order.
(IV) The learned sole Arbitrator is requested to forward the
       statutory Statement of Disclosure under Section 11(8) read
       with Section 12(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,
       1996 to the parties within a period of two weeks from
       receipt of copy of this order.
(V)    The parties shall appear before the learned sole Arbitrator on
       such date and at such place as indicated, to obtain
       appropriate directions with regard to conduct of the
       arbitration including fixing a schedule for pleadings,
       examination of witnesses, if any, schedule of hearings etc. At
       such meeting, the parties shall provide a valid and functional
       email address along with mobile and landline numbers of
       the respective Advocates of the parties to the Arbitral
       Tribunal. Communications to such email addresses shall
       constitute valid service of correspondence in connection
       with the arbitration.
(VI) All the charges to be borne equally subject to final Award
       and fees as per the Schedule.

8.     The Petition stands disposed of.


                                        [S. M. MODAK, J.]




Satish Sangar                                                               5/5