SUBHASH S. GOEL AND ANRversusBHARAT M. NAGORI AND ORS

                                                                     31-WP10964-2026.DOC

                                                                                  Santosh

                            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION


                                     WRIT PETITION NO. 10964 OF 2026

                      Subhash S. Goel And Anr                              ...Petitioners
                                        Versus
                      Bharat M. Nagori And Ors                          …Respondents

                      Mr. Aman Dutta a/w Mr. Hitanshu Patil, Ms. Teena Kapoor i/b
                           Mr. Vinayak Pandit, for the Petitioners.
                      Mr. Pankaj J. Das, for the Respondents.
SANTOSH
SUBHASH
KULKARNI                                           CORAM:     N. J. JAMADAR, J.
Digitally signed by
SANTOSH SUBHASH
KULKARNI
                                                   DATED:     28th SEPTEMBER, 2026
Date: 2026.09.29
14:57:05 +0530


                      Oral Order:-

                      1.   Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner.


                      2.   The challenge in this petition is to an order dated 2 nd May,

                      2026 passed by the learned Sole Arbitrator, whereby an

                      application preferred by the petitioners to decide issue No.1

                      regarding dissolution of the partnership firm and the date of its

                      dissolution as a preliminary issue, came to be rejected.


                      3.   The learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that,

                      the learned Arbitral Tribunal did not provide an effective

                      opportunity of hearing to the petitioners before rejecting the

                      application for deciding the issue of dissolution of the firm as a

                      preliminary issue.


                                                     1/3
                                               31-WP10964-2026.DOC

4.   In paragraph 5 of the impugned order, the Arbitral

Tribunal has recorded in no uncertain terms that, in the facts of

the case, the issue of dissolution of the partnership firm cannot

be decided as a preliminary issue based on the pleadings and

submissions, and evidence is required to decide the said issue.

This Court also finds that, it was the contention of the

petitioners that the Arbitral Tribunal may pass preliminary

award upon the determination of the issue of dissolution of

partnership firm as a preliminary issue. If that is the case, the

impugned order takes the character of an order which declines

to pass a preliminary award.


5.   In any event, this Court in exercise of a limited writ

jurisdiction does not find any reason to interfere with the

impugned    order as neither the petitioners       are   rendered

remediless nor the perversity in the impugned order stares in

the face. It is only in case of rarity, the Writ Court is expected

to interfere the arbitral process during its pendency. (Deep

Industries Ltd. vs. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited and

another1, Bhaven Construction, through Authorised Signatory

Premjibhai K. Shah vs. Executive Engineer, Sardar Sarovar

Narmada Nigam Limited and Another2 and Delhi Airport Metro

1    (2020) 15 SCC 706.
2    (2022) 1 SCC 75.
                               2/3
                                             31-WP10964-2026.DOC

Express Private Limited vs. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation

Limited3.)

6.    The aforesaid being the position in law, this Court is not

inclined to entertain the petition.


7.    The petition stands dismissed.


                                        [N. J. JAMADAR, J.]




3     (2022) 1 SCC 131.
                                3/3