LSP 1 903 ia 7616-28482.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION PETITION NO.37 OF 2026 Mr. Prashant Vinod Vaghasiya ...Petitioner Vs. Mr. Vivekanand Dhaneshwar Jha ...Respondent WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 7616 OF 2026 IN COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION PETITION NO.37 OF 2026 1. Mr. Akhtar Tassaduk Khan 2. Mrs. Vidya Ashok Karkera ...Applicants In the matter between Mr. Prashant Vinod Vaghasiya ...Petitioner Vs. Mr. Vivekanand Dhaneshwar Jha ...Respondent WITH INTERIM APPLICATION (st) NO. 28482 OF 2026 IN COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION PETITION NO.37 OF 2026 Smt. Surekha Suresh Narkhede ...Applicant In the matter between Mr. Prashant Vinod Vaghasiya ...Petitioner Vs. Mr. Vivekanand Dhaneshwar Jha ...Respondent LATA SUNIL PANJWANI Digitally signed by LATA SUNIL PANJWANI Date: 2026.10.01 18:56:11 +0530 LSP 2 903 ia 7616-28482.doc Mr. Anil D’Souza a/w. Mark Dbritto a/w. Mr. Pavan Patil i/b Ernest Tuscano Advocate for the Petitioner. Ms. Shaila R. Pandey for the Respondent. Mr. Chetan Rathod i/b. Mr. Niraj K. Tripathi For the Intervenor in IA (ST) No.28482/2026 Ms.Rashmi A. Tiwari For the Intervenor in IA No. 7616/2026 CORAM : S.M. MODAK, J DATE : 1st October 2026. P.C. : 1. Heard both learned Advocates for the Applicants in two intervention applications. Also heard Mr. D’Souza, learned Advocate for the Petitioner and Ms. Pandey, learned Advocate for the Respondent. 2 By these two applications both the sets of applicants are praying for their impleadment in this arbitration petition. They have based their claim on following facts: A) The original parties to the petition are the Partners of Avighna Infra Builcon LLP though there is some dispute whether the respondent continue to be a Partner or not? B) The Applicant No. in I.A. No.7616/26-Akhtar Khan was LSP 3 903 ia 7616-28482.doc inducted as a Partner of Avighna Infra Buildcon LLP on 20th November 2021. He was ousted on 1st July 2024. It is in dispute. C) On the basis of the claim as a Partner, Akhtar is praying for his impleadment in this arbitration petition. D) Whereas Applicant No.2 in I.A. No.7616/26 -Vidya Karkera who claims to be Partner of Vighnaharta Construction is seeking impleadment on the basis of Deed of Partnership dated 8th April 2013. She became the Partner in place of her husband -Ashok Karkera. There is an MOU dated 8th November 2021 executed in between Avighna Infra Buildcon LLP on one hand and M/s. Vighnaharta Construction. As per the said MOU, Avighna Infra Buildcon LLP has accepted the liability of Vighnaharta Construction. E) Whereas the Applicant in I.A.(st) No.28482/2026–Surekha Narkhede is seeking impleadment because she claims to be Partner of M/s.Vighnaharta Construction as per Partnership Deed dated 6th April 2011. She also claims that on the basis of MOU in between M/s. Avighna Infra LLP and M/s. Vighnaharta Construction, the liability of Vighnaharta is taken over by M/s. Avighna. 3. The above events are recorded on the basis of List of Dates and LSP 4 903 ia 7616-28482.doc Events filed on behalf of the Applicants. The Petitioner does not admits the events as narrated above. In the list of events both the Applicants have narrated all the events. Out of them, the events which are relevant for deciding the impleadment are noted above. 4. These events are not acceptable to the Petitioner but Court has not gone into the said contentious issue. On the basis of instructions, both the learned Advocates submitted that they are ready to appear before the Arbitrator if the dispute is referred to arbitration. 5. Learned Advocate for the Petitioner relied upon the observations in case of ASF Buildtech Private Limited v/s. Shapoorji Pallonji and Company Private Ltd.1. His contention is the above applicants are not necessary party in this arbitration petition and if they want they can file independent impleadment application before the learned Arbitrator. He relied upon the observations in Para Nos.66, Para No.88 and Para No.99 to Para No.102. Once learned Advocates for the Applicants have shown readiness to appear before the learned Arbitrator if the dispute is referred to arbitration, this Court is refraining itself from making any observations about necessity of these applicants being a party before the learned Arbitrator. Hence, the following order: ORDER (i) Both the intervention Applications are allowed. 1 (2025) 5 S.C.R. 1565 LSP 5 903 ia 7616-28482.doc (ii) The Applicants in both the applications be joined as the Respondents. Amendment be carried out within one week. (iii) Their submission for participation before the Arbitrator is recorded. (iv) Both interim applications are disposed of 6. List the Petition on 9th October 2026 as ‘Part-Heard’. (S.M. MODAK, J.)