1/4 29 ARA-33-2026.DOC IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ARBITRATION APPEAL NO. 33 OF 2026 Chauhan Infra Developers LLP & Others … Appellants Versus Laldhar Shivprasad Chauhan & Others … Respondents _______ Mr. Gaurav Srivastav, Ms. Mittal B. Nor and Mr. Nishant Pawar i/b S. K. Srivastav and Co. for Appellants. Adv. M. Ramesh, Mr. Acharya Vijay Anand for Respondents. _______ CORAM : ARIF S. DOCTOR, J. DATE : 17 th SEPTEMBER 2026. P.C. 1. This present Arbitration Appeal is filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“the Arbitration Act”), and impugns an Order dated 25 th February 2026 passed by the District Judge-6, Thane, in an application filed by the Respondent under the provisions of Section 9 of the Arbitration Act. Sairaj SAIRAJ SANJAY KARANDE Digitally signed by SAIRAJ SANJAY KARANDE Date: 2026.09.19 14:20:14 +0530 2/4 29 ARA-33-2026.DOC 2. Heard Mr. Srivastav, learned counsel appearing for the Appellants and Mr. Ramesh appearing on behalf of the Respondents. 3. Mr. Srivastav points out that the dispute between the parties pertains to the dissolution of Respondent No. 1, which is an LLP. He submits that the Petitioner and the Respondents are all the partners of Respondent No. 1. 4. Mr. Srivastav points out that, even prior to the passing of the impugned order, the Tribunal had in an application filed by the Petitioner, under the provisions of Section 16, held that the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to grant the relief sought in arbitration, i.e., the appointment of a liquidator. He submitted that the Tribunal had held that such relief could only be granted by the NCLT, particularly since one of the reliefs sought was the appointment of a Liquidator. He therefore submitted that, in these circumstances, the impugned order ought to be vacated or set aside. Sairaj 3/4 29 ARA-33-2026.DOC 5. Mr. Ramesh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent, opposes the Appeal. He points out that the Order passed on the Section 16 application was challenged before this Court and that, by an order dated 17 th March 2026, this Court permitted the Respondent to file a fresh Statement of Claim before the same Arbitral Tribunal. He has drawn my attention to paragraphs 9 and 10 of the order dated 17 th March 2026, which read as follows: “9. In these circumstances, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter, including the enforceability or the alleged lack thereof of Article 27(ii), the Petitioner is granted liberty to revisit the Learned Arbitral Tribunal with a specific statement of claim that deals only with the matter of specific relief in terms of Article 27(ii) read with Article 28 as alluded to by the Learned Arbitral Tribunal in paragraphs 17 and 18 of the Impugned Order. 10. If such a new statement of claim is filed, without this Court having made any comment on the contentions of the respective parties on merits, the Learned Arbitral Tribunal is requested to examine the matter and take a view in accordance with law.” Sairaj 4/4 29 ARA-33-2026.DOC 6. Mr. Ramesh further submits that, pursuant to the liberty so granted, a fresh Statement of Claim has been filed before the Arbitral Tribunal and is presently pending consideration. It is, however, common ground that the Respondent has not filed any application under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act before the Arbitral Tribunal. 7. I, therefore, dispose of this Arbitration Appeal by directing that the impugned Order shall continue to operate only for four weeks from today. 8. If the Petitioner files a Section 17 application, the same shall be heard and decided on its merits, uninfluenced by observations made in this Order. 9. Arbitration Appeal is disposed of. Nothing survives for consideration in pending civil/interim applications, if any, and the same stand disposed of. [ARIF S. DOCTOR, J.] Sairaj