Bombay High Court

MR. AKHTAR TASSADUK KAHNversusPRASHANT VINOD VAGHASIYA

Decided: 1 October 2026
Disposal: Disposed Off

Holding

The court held that the intervenors may be joined as respondents in the arbitration petition.

Summary

The High Court considered two separate intervention applications seeking the impleadment of three individuals who claim partnership interests in Avighna Infra Buildcon LLP and Vighnaharta Construction in a commercial arbitration petition between Mr. Prashant Vaghasiya and Mr. Vivekanand Jha. The applicants argued that, based on partnership deeds and a memorandum of understanding, they are necessary parties and should be joined as respondents. The petitioner contested the factual basis of the applicants’ claims but did not contest their readiness to appear before the arbitrator. Relying on observations in ASF Buildtech Private Limited v. Shapoorji Pallonji (2025) 5 SCC 1565, the Court held that the applicants could be joined as respondents and that any question of necessity could be addressed by the arbitrator. Consequently, the Court allowed both intervention applications, ordered the applicants to be joined as respondents with an amendment to be filed within a week, recorded their willingness to participate before the arbitrator, and disposed of the interim applications, listing the main petition as part‑heard.

Issues considered

Whether the applicants seeking impleadment are necessary parties to the arbitration petition
Whether the court can join the applicants as respondents through intervention
Whether the necessity of their participation should be referred to the arbitrator

Subjects

Arbitration
Intervention
Impleadment
Partnership dispute
Commercial arbitration
High Court
Procedural law

Judgment

                      LSP                             1    903 ia 7616-28482.doc


                            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                   CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                       COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION PETITION NO.37 OF 2026

                      Mr. Prashant Vinod Vaghasiya               ...Petitioner
                              Vs.
                      Mr. Vivekanand Dhaneshwar Jha              ...Respondent

                                          WITH
                           INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 7616 OF 2026
                                           IN
                       COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION PETITION NO.37 OF 2026

                      1. Mr. Akhtar Tassaduk Khan

                      2. Mrs. Vidya Ashok Karkera                ...Applicants

                      In the matter between

                      Mr. Prashant Vinod Vaghasiya               ...Petitioner
                              Vs.
                      Mr. Vivekanand Dhaneshwar Jha              ...Respondent

                                          WITH
                          INTERIM APPLICATION (st) NO. 28482 OF 2026
                                            IN
                       COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION PETITION NO.37 OF 2026

                      Smt. Surekha Suresh Narkhede               ...Applicant

                      In the matter between
         Digitally
         signed by
         LATA
LATA     SUNIL


                      Mr. Prashant Vinod Vaghasiya               ...Petitioner
SUNIL    PANJWANI
PANJWANI Date:
         2026.10.01
         18:56:11
         +0530




                              Vs.
                      Mr. Vivekanand Dhaneshwar Jha              ...Respondent
LSP                                  2              903 ia 7616-28482.doc




Mr. Anil D’Souza a/w. Mark Advocate for the Petitioner.
Dbritto a/w. Mr. Pavan Patil i/b
Ernest Tuscano
Ms. Shaila R. Pandey               for the Respondent.
Mr. Chetan Rathod i/b. Mr.         For the Intervenor in IA (ST)
Niraj K. Tripathi                  No.28482/2026
Ms.Rashmi A. Tiwari                For the Intervenor in IA No.
                                   7616/2026

                            CORAM : S.M. MODAK, J

                               DATE : 1st October 2026.

P.C. :

1.       Heard both learned Advocates for the Applicants in two
intervention applications. Also heard         Mr. D’Souza, learned
Advocate for the Petitioner and Ms. Pandey, learned Advocate for
the Respondent.

2        By these two applications both the sets of applicants are
praying for their impleadment in this arbitration petition. They have
based their claim on following facts:

      A) The original parties to the petition are the Partners of
            Avighna Infra Builcon LLP though there is some dispute
            whether the respondent continue to be a Partner or not?

      B) The Applicant No. in I.A. No.7616/26-Akhtar Khan was
LSP                                 3               903 ia 7616-28482.doc


          inducted as a Partner of Avighna Infra Buildcon LLP on
          20th November 2021. He was ousted on 1st July 2024. It is
          in dispute.

      C) On the basis of the claim as a Partner, Akhtar is praying for
          his impleadment in this arbitration petition.

      D) Whereas Applicant No.2 in I.A. No.7616/26 -Vidya Karkera
          who claims to be Partner of Vighnaharta Construction is
          seeking impleadment on the basis of Deed of Partnership
          dated 8th April 2013. She became the Partner in place of her
          husband -Ashok Karkera. There is an MOU dated 8th
          November 2021 executed in between Avighna Infra
          Buildcon LLP on one hand and M/s. Vighnaharta
          Construction.    As per the said MOU,         Avighna             Infra
          Buildcon LLP has accepted the liability of Vighnaharta
          Construction.

      E) Whereas the Applicant in I.A.(st) No.28482/2026–Surekha
          Narkhede is seeking impleadment because she claims to be
          Partner of M/s.Vighnaharta Construction as per Partnership
          Deed dated 6th April 2011. She also claims that on the basis
          of MOU in between M/s. Avighna Infra LLP and M/s.
          Vighnaharta Construction, the liability of Vighnaharta is
          taken over by M/s. Avighna.

3.     The above events are recorded on the basis of List of Dates and
LSP                                   4               903 ia 7616-28482.doc


Events filed on behalf of the Applicants. The Petitioner does not
admits the events as narrated above. In the list of events both the
Applicants have narrated all the events. Out of them, the events
which are relevant for deciding the impleadment are noted above.

4.       These events are not acceptable to the Petitioner but Court has
not gone into the said contentious issue. On the basis of instructions,
both the learned Advocates submitted that they are ready to appear
before the Arbitrator if the dispute is referred to arbitration.

5.       Learned Advocate for the Petitioner relied upon the
observations in case of ASF Buildtech Private Limited v/s. Shapoorji
Pallonji and Company Private Ltd.1. His contention is the above
applicants are not necessary party in this arbitration petition and if
they want they can file independent impleadment application before
the learned Arbitrator. He relied upon the observations in Para
Nos.66, Para No.88 and Para No.99 to Para No.102. Once learned
Advocates for the Applicants have shown readiness to appear before
the learned Arbitrator if the dispute is referred to arbitration, this
Court        is refraining itself from making any observations about
necessity of these applicants being a party before the learned
Arbitrator. Hence, the following order:
                              ORDER

       (i) Both the intervention Applications are allowed.


1    (2025) 5 S.C.R. 1565
LSP                                 5                  903 ia 7616-28482.doc


      (ii) The Applicants in both the applications be joined as the
          Respondents. Amendment be carried out within one week.

      (iii) Their submission for participation before the Arbitrator is
          recorded.

      (iv) Both interim applications are disposed of


6.     List the Petition on 9th October 2026 as ‘Part-Heard’.



                                               (S.M. MODAK, J.)

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.