1 2-wp-13595-2017.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 13595 OF 2017 Harish Thakurdas Rizwani VERSUS Dhanraj Nawalrai Rizwani And Others ... Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Kasliwal Anil H. AGP for Respondent/State : Mr. S.G Joshi Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 to 4 : Mr. V.C. Patil h/f Mr. U.B. Bondar ... CORAM : ROHIT W. JOSHI, J. DATED : AUGUST 31, 2026 P.C.: 1. Present petitioner was a partner in partnership firm named M/s. New Dhanraj Liquors. The said partnership firm was engaged in wholesale business of sale of country liquor. It has a license for conducting said business issued in CL-II under the Maharashtra Country Liquor Rules, 1973. Apart from the petitioner, who is partner no.4 in the said firm, there were three other partners, who are respondent nos.1 to 3 in the present petition. 2. On 01.04.2012, another partnership deed came to be executed by and between respondent nos.1 to 4. The partnership firm constituted by the said deed of partnership was named M/s. D.R. Distributors. Respondent nos.1 to 4 are partners in the firm M/s. D.R. Distributors. The petitioner is not a partner in the firm M/s. D.R. Distributors. The petitioner instituted a suit being Regular Civil Suit No.68 of 2017 against respondents nos.1 to 4 and the authorities of 2026:BHC-AUG:39639 2 2-wp-13595-2017.odt Government of Maharashtra exercising jurisdiction under the provisions of Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949 interalia seeking a decree for perpetual injunction restraining respondent nos.1 to 4 (defendant nos.1 to 4 in civil suit) from obtaining license in question in the name of newly constituted firm M/s. D.R. Distributors. In the said suit, respondent no.4 moved an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 praying that in view of Clause 13 of first partnership deed dated 17.11.1994, the dispute be referred to arbitration. The said application was opposed by the petitioner on the ground that respondent no.4 is not a party to the first partnership deed of M/s. New Dhanraj Liquors, dated 17.11.1994 in which arbitration clause is incorporated and further subsequent partnership deed dated 01.04.2012 with respect to M/s. D.R. Distributors does not include a clause for reference of dispute for arbitration and the petitioner/plaintiff is not even a partner under the subsequent partnership deed. 3. Learned Trial Court vide impugned order dated 11.08.2017 allowed the application and referred the parties for adjudication of dispute to arbitration. The said order is subject matter of challenge in the present petition. 4. Mr. Kasliwal, learned advocate for the petitioner/plaintiff argues that an Arbitrator gets jurisdiction only from an agreement 3 2-wp-13595-2017.odt executed between the parties. Learned advocate argues that since the defendant/respondent no.4 is not a partner in the partnership deed dated 17.11.1994 (M/s. New Dhanraj Liquors), wherein arbitration clause is incorporated and subsequent partnership deed dated 01.04.2012 (M/s. D.R. Distributors) does not contain a clause for arbitration and the petitioner/plaintiff is also not a partner in the subsequently created firm, the dispute cannot be referred for arbitration. He argues that learned Trial Court lost sight of this vital aspect of the matter while allowing the application. 5. Per contra, Mr. Vijay Patil, learned advocate for respondent nos.1 to 4, original defendant nos.1 to 4 contends that learned Trial Court has properly considered the controversy and has rightly referred the parties to arbitration. Learned advocate contends that the present petitioner/plaintiff had tendered resignation as a partner of the firm M/s. New Dhanraj Liquors by executing a document dated 20.11.2009 and thereafter, respondent/defendant no.4 was inducted as partner in the firm. 6. The contention of Mr. Patil is pertaining to merits of the dispute. The said contention is not relevant for deciding the arbitrality of the dispute. The parties to civil suit are present petitioner and respondent nos.1 to 4 and some other authorities. In the first partnership deed wherein arbitration clause is incorporated, respondent 4 2-wp-13595-2017.odt no.4 is not a partner. In the subsequent deed, a partnership deed which does not include a arbitration clause, the petitioner/plaintiff is not a partner. Even if the second partnership is considered to be continuation of first partnership, it has to be stated that there is no agreement for reference of dispute to arbitration at least between petitioner/plaintiff and respondent/defendant no.4. Since there is no arbitration agreement between the plaintiff and contesting defendant, the dispute could not have been referred for arbitration. 7. In that view of the matter, in the considered opinion of this Court, the impugned order dated 11.08.2017 is unsustainable and liable to be quashed and set aside. Writ Petition is allowed by quashing and setting aside order dated 11.08.2017 passed by learned IInd Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nanded below Exhibit-53 in Regular Civil Suit No.68 of 2017 by rejecting the said application at Exhibit-53. 8. It must also be stated that it is not the case of respondent nos.1 to 4 that respondent no.4 is claiming through the petitioner. [ROHIT W. JOSHI J.] Mujaheed//