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. CORAM: N. J. JAMADAR, J. DATED: 28th SEPTEMBER, 2026 Oral Order:- 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. 2. The challenge in this petition is to an order dated 2nd 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 SANTOSH SUBHASH KULKARNI Digitally signed by SANTOSH SUBHASH KULKARNI Date: 2026.09.29 14:57:05 +0530 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