1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 4930/2011 (VAISHALI ANAND KSHIRSAGAR VERSUS AVINASH MANOHAR SHEREKAR) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri N.B. Bargat, counsel for the petitioner. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : NOVEMBER 25 , 2011 . By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order passed by the trial Court on 29.08.2011 rejecting an application filed by the petitioner for referring the dispute to the Arbitrator. The petitioner is the original defendant. A suit was filed by the respondent-plaintiff for specific performance of contract. It was the case of the respondent-plaintiff that he was in need of two vehicles viz. Mahindra Scorpio and Maruti Zen and since he would not have been entitled for loan and since the relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant was healthy, the plaintiff purchased the vehicles in the name of the defendant-petitioner obtaining loan in the petitioner’s name. The loan amount, according to the plaintiff, was, however, liable to be paid by the plaintiff and it was agreed that the petitioner-defendant would not raise an objection for transferring the said vehicles in the name of the plaintiff. It is pleaded by the plaintiff-respondent that after the two vehicles were purchased in the name of the petitioner, the petitioner and her husband started demanding the two vehicles in stead 2 of transferring the same in the name of the plaintiff. Hence, the plaintiff filed a suit for a direction to the petitioner to transfer the same in the name of the plaintiff and a declaration that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of both the vehicles. The application was filed by the petitioner in the said suit filed by the respondent for referring the matter to the arbitrator. However, the said application was rejected by the impugned order dated 29.08.2011. On a reading of the plaint, the partnership agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant and the impugned order, it appears that the trial Court was justified in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner. It is necessary to note that the partnership firm of the petitioner and the respondent came into existence for dealing in real estate and for carrying on business of purchasing of agricultural and non-agricultural land, developing colonies, etc. Clause 17 of the agreement, the Arbitration Clause, provided that any dispute in connection with the partnership shall be referred to an Arbitrator to be appointed under the provisions of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940. Since the suit was filed for specific performance of contract and for a direction to the petitioner to transfer the two vehicles in the name of the plaintiff and the same had nothing to do with the business of the partnership firm, the trial Court rightly held that the application filed by the petitioner for referring the dispute between the parties to the Arbitrator was liable to be rejected. The trial Court observed that the agreement between the petitioner and the respondent at Exhibit 4/1 did not make any reference to the purchase of the two vehicles by the 3 partnership firm. There is no error whatsoever, much less, a jurisdictional error, in the order passed by the trial Court. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE