C/ARBI.P/137/2023 ORDER DATED: 04/07/2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/PETN. UNDER ARBITRATION ACT NO. 137 of 2023 ========================================================== VARUN CHETAN DHRUV & ANR. Versus GLOBAL BERRIES & ORS. ========================================================== Appearance: ADITYA A GUPTA(7875) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2 IG JOSHI(8726) for the Respondent(s) No. 4 MR KISHAN N BRAHMBHATT(11382) for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3 MR NILESH S BRAHMBHATT(11421) for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3 MR SANTOSH D GOENKA(5326) for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3 NOTICE UNSERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.RAY Date : 04/07/2025 ORAL ORDER 1. Heard Mr. Aditya A.Gupta, learned counsel for the Petitioners and Mr.Santosh D.Goenka, learned counsel for the Respondents Nos. 2 and 3. 2. The brief facts of the case as stated in the petition, are as under :- 2.1 The Petitioners were designated partners of Respondent No. 1, a partnership firm (since defendant) formed pursuant to an agreement dated 27.10.2021 executed between the Petitioners and Respondent Nos. 2 and 3. The firm was established with the objective of engaging in hydroponic farming of vegetables. As per the understanding between the parties, the project was to be C/ARBI.P/137/2023 ORDER DATED: 04/07/2025 developed over two acres of land with an estimated investment of approximately Rs. 2.5 crores per acre, subject to escalation. The capital contribution ratio was fixed at 40:60. 2.2 In February 2023, Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 expressed their intention to retire from the firm and sought return of their capital contribution. The Petitioners informed them that the funds stood invested in the project and, hence, could not be returned. 2.3 On 18.03.2023, the Petitioners were approached by police officers at the farm and were directed to appear before the Crime Branch, Rajkot. Subsequently, individuals, including one Mr. Ankur Bansal—allegedly associated with Respondent Nos. 2 and 3— visited the Petitioners’ premises and purportedly issued threats. Multiple visits by Mr. Bansal occurred on 10.04.2023 and 26.04.2023, with police assistance allegedly being sought but not provided. 2.4 It was mentioned that the Petitioners and their father were called to the Crime Branch on three occasions between March and April 2023 for extended interrogations. During one such visit, post- dated cheques and an affidavit were allegedly obtained under C/ARBI.P/137/2023 ORDER DATED: 04/07/2025 coercion. 2.5 The Petitioners issued a notice dated 19.06.2023 invoking the arbitration clause in the agreement. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 declined arbitration via reply dated 26.06.2023. Therefore, the petitioners preferred this petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, with the following prayers: “a. YOUR LORDSHIP BE pleased to appoint a sole Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes that have arisen between the parties. b. YOUR LORDSHIP BE pleased that such Arbitrator may commence the arbitration proceedings as per the terms of the Partnership Agreement. c. YOUR LORDSHIP BE pleased to pass any other Interim and ad- interim reliefs in terms of above prayer clauses d. YOUR LORDSHIP BE pleased to pass any other orders this Hon'ble Court may deem fit under the nature and circumstances of the case.” 3. Mr. Santosh D.Goenka, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 has submitted that the Petitioners have executed an affidavit superseding the partnership agreement and therefore the agreement now being non-existent does not have a live arbitration clause. He further submitted relying upon the contents of the affidavit dated 25.04.2023 that the Petitioners have issued C/ARBI.P/137/2023 ORDER DATED: 04/07/2025 cheques worth Rs.7,36,00,000/- to the Respondents, which have bounced and consequently, the proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 have been initiated against the Petitioners and the present application seeking appointment of an Arbitrator has been sought to avoid the liability of the Petitioners. He therefore prayed for dismissal of the present petition. 4. In the rejoinder filed on 18.03.2025, the Petitioners have categorically stated as under :- “[5.f.] With reference to para 4.4, we deny the contents therein in totality and state that in para 21 of the said Petition, the conditions under which the post dated cheques (PDCs) and the affidavit were issued have been mentioned. We repeat and reiterate that the affidavit along with the PDCs were executed through coercion. We further deny that the documents/instruments mentioned in the said paragraph are undisputed.” 5. Thus, I am of the opinion that the existence of the partnership agreement dated 27.10.2021 is a matter which is required to be decided in an arbitration. I am therefore, of the opinion that the disputes forming the subject matter of the notice of invocation dated 19.06.2023 are to be referred to arbitration. Page 4 of 5 C/ARBI.P/137/2023 ORDER DATED: 04/07/2025 6. Noticing the above, I proceed to pass following :- (i) The petition is ALLOWED. (ii) Hon’ble Mr.Justice Shri Ashutosh J.Shastri, Former Judge, Gujarat High Court having address at 18, Trimurti Society, Opp. Vasundhara Society, B/h. Navkar School, Gulbai Tekra, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad, 380015 and having contact No. (M) 9825047078 & Email ID: ajsadvocate@gmail.com is hereby nominated as a sole Arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the parties in accordance with the Arbitration Centre (Domestic and International), High Court of Gujarat Rules, 2021. Both Parties would also be bound by the said Rules. (iii) Registry to communicate this order to the sole Arbitrator forthwith by Speed Post. (iv) Consequently, all pending connected application/s, if any, stands disposed of. No order as to costs. (D.N.RAY,J) BINA SHAH Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge. Digitally signed by: BINA A SHAH(HC00353), PRINCIPAL PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 08/07/2025 18:46:34