Arb P No. 18/2025 Sr. No. 17 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR (Through Virtual Mode) CM No. 6534/2025 in Arb P No. 18/2025 Date of pronouncement: 17.10.2025 Uploaded on: 28.10.2025 Tanveer Ahmad Lone (Age 32 years), S/o Ghulam Rasool Lone, R/o Drugmullah, Kupwara. …Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s) Through: Mr. Mir Umar, Advocate V/s Ashfaq Ahmad Mir, S/o Ghulam Ahmad Mir, R/o Syed-abad, Main Town Kupwara. ... Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Waqar-Ul-Haq, Advocate CORAM:HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ORDER(ORAL) CM No. 6534/2025 : This is an application seeking preponement of the date fixed in the arbitration petition. For the reasons set out in the application, which is duly supported by an affidavit and particularly as the prayer made therein is not opposed by learned counsel for the non-applicant/respondent, the date fixed in the matter is preponed to today. Application stands disposed of. Accordingly, the main matter is taken on board. Arb P No. 18/2025 : 1. The present petition has been filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking appointment of an arbitrator. 2 Arb P No. 18/2025 2. The petitioner being a degree holder in Hotel Management and Hospitality and having gained substantial experience in the Hotel and Restaurant industry, with the intention of providing employment opportunities to the unemployed youth, started a Restaurant under the name and style of M/s Hot Spot Restaurant Bye Pass, Kupwara. Accordingly, the petitioner and the respondent entered into a Partnership Deed on February 01, 2022 in order to carry on the business of Restaurant Service. It is submitted that both the petitioner and respondent invested a total sum of Rs.28 lakhs (Rs.14,00,000/- each) and agreed to share profits and losses in equal proportionin order to start the venture. Besides this, the petitioner was also entitled to get Rs.10,000/- as salary from the partnership firm. It is further submitted that petitioner was designated as the Managing Partner, responsible for day-to-day affairs, while the respondent was a sleeping partner. In the year 2024,greed overcame the respondent, who began harassing and leveling false allegations against the petitioner with an intention to oust him and take complete control of the business. The respondent, using his influence as the son of the owner of the building where the restaurant operates, illegally dispossessed the petitioner from the premises and took over the management of the restaurant unilaterally. The petitioner was, thus, deprived of his rightful share in the partnership and profits, causing mental agony, harassment and irreparable loss. Consequently, the petitioner approached the civil court and vide order dated 15.05.2024, the court of Sub-Judge, Kupwara, restrained the respondent from expelling the petitioner from the partnership business and allowed him to continue as partner. Against the order of the Sub-Judge, Kupwara, (ibid), an appeal was preferred by the respondent before the court of Principal District Judge, Kupwara, on the ground that appellant has preferred an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, before the Court of Sub-Judge, Kupwara and the said application is pending. The appellate court while disposing of the appeal vide its order dated 06.07.2024 set aside the interim order and directed the parties to maintain status quo till disposal of the application filed under Section 8 of the Act. 3. The trial court vide order dated 30.11.2024 disposed of the civil suit, directing the parties to settle their dispute through Arbitration in light of the arbitration clause. The petitioner conceded to the said application and agreed for settlement of dispute through Arbitrator. It is submitted that the petitioner thereafter many a times requested the respondent to approach the arbitrator so that the dispute is settled in light of the Arbitration Clause. 3 Arb P No. 18/2025 4. Despite petitioner’s repeated requests for initiation of arbitration proceedings, including a formal notice dated 09.04.2025, the respondent refused to cooperate and continued to carry on the partnership business exclusively depriving the petitioner of his rights/profits in the partnership concern. Hence, this petition. 5. Pursuant to the notice issued by this Court, the respondent though caused appearance through Mr. Waqar-Ul-Haq, Advocate, but no reply/response has been filed on his behalf. 6. The existence of the arbitration clause, as aforesaid, and its invocation by the petitioner vide notice dated 09.04.2025 is not disputed. 7. Thus, in the given circumstances, learned counsel for the respondent, as always, fairly submits that let an arbitrator be appointed. But since the claim that is sought to be made by the petitioner is vehemently disputed/ denied, it is submitted that respondent be granted liberty to raise all possible pleas/ objections before the arbitral tribunal/ arbitrator in this regard. 8. Accordingly, in the wake of the position sketched out above and in terms of the statements made by the learned counsel for the parties, the petition is allowed. And, with consent of learned counsel for the parties, Mr. Gowhar Majid Dalal, Retired District and Sessions Judge, (Mobile No.9419049355), is appointed as the sole arbitrator. Who shall proceed with the matter in accordance with the provisions of the Act. And to make an award within the time provided in the Act itself after charging the prescribed fee along with incidental expenses to be shared by the parties. 9. Registry to send a copy of this order to the learned arbitrator. (ARUN PALLI) CHIEF JUSTICE Jammu : 17.10.2025 Pawan Chopra Pawan Chopra 2025.10.28 10:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document