Sr. No.4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU (Through Virtual Mode) Arb P No.40/2026 Cavt No.891/2026 Vikrant Khajuria and anr. …Petitioner(s). Through: Mr. Lawanya Sharma, Advocate. Vs. Bhanu Partap Khajuria and others. ….Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Rakesh Chargotra, Sr. Advocate, with M/s Abhishek Verma & Sabhya Gandhi, Advocates. CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE O R D E R 15.05.2026 1. The present petition has been filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking appointment of an arbitrator. 2. A partnership deed for running of a hotel M/s Hotel Shivam and one Guest House under the name and style of M/s Bhagwati Guest House was executed by the predecessors in interest of the parties, namely, Late Des Raj and Late Yagya Dutt Khajuria. And upon the demise of the said partners, various reconstitutions of the partnership deed took place and, accordingly, the petitioners and the respondents 1 to 3 became partners for management and running of the hotel business. 3. It is stated that the in the year 2022, the petitioners came to know about a registered Disinheritance Deed dated 04.07.2009 executed by their father whereby respondent No. 01 was disinherited from all movable and immovable properties and this fact was concealed by respondent No. 01 at the time of him being inducted into the partnership. It is further stated that the various disputes arose with the respondent No. 01 viz-a-viz his failure to contribute towards renovation expenses of the hotel; misbehavior with the hotel guests, obstruction caused in financial matters by refusing to sign the bank documents etc. 4. It is stated that in order to resolve the disputes/grievances with the respondent No. 01, the petitioners served various show cause notices upon him to participate in the meetings. However, upon his failure to do so, a resolution dated 29.06.2025 was passed in terms of which the respondent No. 01 was expelled from the partnership firm under clause 17 of the partnership deed. However, he still continued to interfere with the affairs of the business. As a result the petitioners filed a civil suit before the court of learned Sub-Judge, Katra and in terms of an order dated 07.08.2025, the learned court restrained the respondent No. 01 from causing any interference with the business of the petitioners. 5. However, during the pendency of the said suit, an application was filed by the respondents (plaintiffs 4 and 5 in the suit) seeking withdrawal of the suit, which was allowed and they were permitted to withdraw from the suit. 6. It is further stated that during the pendency of the suit, respondent No. 01 also filed an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which was allowed vide order dated 27.01.2026 and the parties were referred to the arbitration. However, despite order dated 27.01.2026, respondent No. 01 did not take any further steps for arbitration of the dispute despite having invoked the arbitration clause before the court of learned Sub-Judge, Katra. 7. Aggrieved, the petitioner served a legal notice dated 11.03.2026 upon the respondents seeking appointment of an arbitrator. And in response, the respondent Nos. 2 & 3 took a stand that no arbitrable dispute exists qua them in relation to their 50% share. While respondent No. 01 took a contradictory stand by denying the existence of any dispute between the parties. 8. It is urged that real and substantial disputes continue to exist between the parties inter alia with respect to the management and operation of the partnership business, control and operation of the bank accounts, rights and liabilities of the parties. Hence, the present petition. 9. Heard. Notice. 10. Served with advance copy of the petition, Mr. Abhishek Verma, Assisting Counsel to Mr. Rakesh Chargotra, learned senior counsel, present in Court, accepts notice. Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently disputes/denies the claim that is sought to be made by the petitioner. It is urged that the claim of the petitioner is apparently misconceived and untenable, and thus deserves to be rejected. However, the existence of the arbitration clause, as aforesaid, and filing of application of application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation before the court Sub-Judge, Katra, is not denied. He, accordingly, submits that let an arbitrator be appointed but the respondents be granted liberty to raise all possible pleas in this regard before the arbitrator. 11. Accordingly, in the wake of the position sketched out above and in terms of the statement made by the learned counsel for the respondents, the petition is allowed. And, with consent of learned counsel for the parties, Mr. Virinder Singh Bhou, Retired District Judge (Mob. No.9419102999) 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. The respondents are at liberty to raise all the possible pleas/ objections as regards the subject matter before the learned Arbitrator. 12. Registry to send a copy of this order to the learned arbitrator (ARUN PALLI) CHIEF JUSTICE Srinagar 15.05.2026 Abdul Qayoom, Secy. Abdul Qayoom Lone I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 18.05.2026 15:39