Bombay High Court
MR. PADAMSHI KALYANJI GAJRAversusM/S. SAINATH KHARBAV DEVELOPERS LLP
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The court appoints Mr. Drupad Patil as the sole arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute.
Summary
The petition filed by Padamshi Kalyanji Gajra sought the appointment of an arbitrator to resolve a dispute with Sainath Kharbav Developers LLP. The court noted that two respondents were absent when the matter was first listed, leading to procedural delays. After hearing the parties, they agreed to abandon the three‑member tribunal and instead have a sole arbitrator, with the court appointing Mr. Drupad Patil. The order also directed the parties to provide contact details, stipulated disclosure requirements under the Arbitration Act, and allocated arbitration costs equally. The court emphasized that the order does not address the merits of the dispute, which remain for the arbitrator to decide.
Issues considered
- Whether the court can appoint a sole arbitrator in place of a three‑member tribunal
- Procedural propriety of appointing an arbitrator when some respondents were absent
- Determination of the seat of arbitration and related procedural directions
Legislation cited
- Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — s. 11(8), 12(1)
Subjects
- arbitration
- appointment of arbitrator
- sole arbitrator
- seat of arbitration
- procedural law
- arbitration costs
Judgment
901-ARP-17-2026.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Digitally
signed by
ASHOK
JADHAV
CHAITANYA
CHAITANYA ASHOK
JADHAV
Date:
ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 17 OF 2026
2026.02.10
11:44:38
+0530
Padamshi Kalyanji Gajra …Petitioner
Versus
Sainath Kharbav Developers LLP …Respondents
Mr. R. D. Soni, i/b Meena Sharma, for the Petitioner.
Adv. Nipa Ghosh a/w Amir Shah i/b Dhaval Vussonji and
Associates, for Respondent Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 7.
Mr. Abhijeet J. Kandarkar, for Respondent Nos. 5 and 6.
Adv. V. R. Kask, for the Respondent No.8.
CORAM : SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, J.
DATE : FEBRUARY 4, 2026
ORDER :
1. This matter was listed at Item No. 7 on February 2, 2026.
Two of the partners, who are Respondents in the proceedings, had not
entered appearance, while the other Respondents had entered
appearance and in fact pointed out that they had suggested the name of
a nominee arbitrator.
Page 1 of 5
February 4, 2026
Chaitanya
901-ARP-17-2026.doc
2. Towards that end, an order was dictated accepting such
nominee arbitrator and directing that the two arbitrators shall confer
and appoint the third arbitrator.
3. Thereafter, the learned Advocate for the two Respondents
who were not present in the morning when the matter was called out,
mentioned the matter in the evening and complained that he was
unaware of the matter having been listed that day and that it had been
moved without notice. That apart, he submitted that he would give
notice to the other parties and mention the matter afresh on the next
date. Yesterday, the matter was mentioned afresh, and to enable all
parties to remain present, it has been listed at Item No. 901 on the
supplementary board today.
4. Today, Learned Advocate on behalf of the missing
Respondents submits that the Court may appoint a nominee arbitrator
on behalf of the Respondents since what was hitherto a two-way fight
could in fact be a three-way fight, and an independently nominated
arbitrator would be appropriate.
5. To this, Learned Advocate on behalf of the Petitioners
suggests that the parties may agree upon the Court appointing a sole
arbitrator, giving go-by to a three-member Arbitral Tribunal. Initially,
Page 2 of 5
February 4, 2026
Chaitanya
901-ARP-17-2026.doc
this was accepted by all parties, but the Learned Advocate for
Respondent no. 2, 3, 4 and 7, thereafter demurred and suggested that
she would need instructions to agree upon a sole arbitrator.
6. The matter is therefore stood over to 03:00 p.m. to enable
instructions to be obtained by all parties so that a sole arbitrator, if
confirmed by the parties, would be appointed by this Court.
In the afternoon @ 3:oo p.m.
7. Learned Advocate for the parties jointly express their
consensus to abandon the three-member Arbitral Tribunal framework
agreed upon and to proceed before a Sole Arbitrator, leaving it to this
Court to appoint the arbitrator. The parties also contend that the
arbitration may be conducted in Mumbai to remove any doubt about
the identity of the seat. Taking the consensus between the parties on
record, the Arbitral Tribunal is constituted in the following terms :-
A) Mr. Drupad Patil, Learned Advocate of this Court is
hereby appointed as the Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate
upon the disputes and differences between the parties
arising out of and in connection with the Agreement
referred to above;
Page 3 of 5
February 4, 2026
Chaitanya
901-ARP-17-2026.doc
Email ID: [email protected]
B) A copy of this Order will be communicated to the
Learned Sole Arbitrator by the Advocates for the
Petitioner within a 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 a copy of
this Order;
C) The Learned Sole Arbitrator is requested to forward
the statutory Statement of Disclosure under Section
11(8) read with Section 12(1) of the Act to the parties
within a period of two weeks from receipt of a copy of
this Order;
D) 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
Page 4 of 5
February 4, 2026
Chaitanya
901-ARP-17-2026.doc
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;
E) All arbitral costs and fees of the Arbitral Tribunal shall
be borne by the parties equally in the first instance,
and shall be subject to any final Award that may be
passed by the Tribunal in relation to costs.
8. 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.
9. 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.]
Page 5 of 5
February 4, 2026
Chaitanya
Checking your session…