1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ARBITRATION PETITION (LODGING) NO. 686 OF 2009 WITH ARBITRATION PETITION (LODGING) NO. 962 OF 2009 Chandulal Popatlal Patel & 2 Ors. ...Petitioners. Vs. Santosh Ram Jajodia & 6 Ors. ...Respondents. ..... Mr.A.Y.Sakhare, Senior Counsel with Mr.Rajesh Datar with Mr.Pankaj Das for the Petitioners. Mr.P.K.Samdhani, Senior Counsel i/by Anil R. Mishra for Respondent nos. 1 to 7. ..... CORAM :- ANOOP V. MOHTA, J. DATED :- 15th October, 2009. P.C.- 1. Heard finally by consent. 2. The petitioners have invoked Section 9 as well as Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short “The Act”). The petitioners have challenged an Award dated 9th July 2009. Admittedly, the partnership firm/Joint Venture has been entered into for a particular project which is not yet completed. Therefore, having once joined for the project, unless that is dissolved, the parties are under obligation and/or bound to complete the same. It is in the interest of all the parties who are involved in such joint 2 venture and those who have purchased the properties/flats in pursuance to the advertisement so made jointly by them. Admittedly, the partnership firm in question is also not yet dissolved. It appears that the petitioner who has 25% shares in the joint venture/partnership firm is also not interested in taking steps to dissolve the firm and so also the respondents. 3. Admittedly the parties have, as per the agreement clause, appointed an Arbitrator. It is not the case that the parties were not represented and/or appeared before the Arbitrator. In a business transaction like this, when parties themselves have decided to resolve their dispute through the arbitration, it is desirable that the parties will follow such reasonable order to continue with the project rather than to dissolve it. The learned Arbitrator, therefore, considering the basic claims/dispute, as raised between the parties has passed the award. 4. It is difficult for the Arbitrator to direct or give specific arithmetical reasons in a situation when both the parties want to continue with the project, but are raising dispute with regard to the internal management and/or against each other. However, the Arbitrator, in fact, considering the scope and purpose has passed the workable award, which, in my view cannot be said to be perverse, specially when the parties themselves have decided to get their dispute resolved through the named Arbitrator. 3 5. The learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents makes submission that this type of award basically without dissolving the firm is impermissible, illegal and cannot be passed. A strong reliance is placed on “Hy-Line International V/s. C & M Farming Limited, 2004 (2) Bom.C.R.10, that judgment in my view have totally different facts and circumstances. In the present case, the workable award if passed, with whole intention to continue with the project so as to complete the project, in my view, unless shown to be perverse and totally against the terms needs no interference. 6. The submission made by the learned counsel that the addition prayers’ claims not raised earlier have been granted. The award so passed shows that the some prayers so raised in the new letter/petition have been considered to make the award workable, that itself also in my view is no reason to interfere with the award passed in this matter. It is well within the record and the law. 7. Importantly, the petitioner has 25% and the respondents have 75% shares/rights in the project/firm. While passing the award, the learned Arbitrator has taken note of this and permitted the parties to sell the flats and properties accordingly. The Arbitrator merely mentioned that property should not be less than Rs. 2,500 per sq.ft that does not mean that the Arbitrator has fixed the rate also. Even otherwise, as submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the 4 respondents that the parties are bound to maintain the record and the accounts. Therefore, the issue with regard to the maintenance of the account of the firm, is also taken care of. 8. Resultantly, I see there is no case is made out by the petitioner. There is no need to interfere with the award passed by the Arbitrator. The petition is dismissed. No costs. 9. In the result, in view of above, the Arbitration Petition (Lodging) No. 962 of 2009 u/s. 9 of the Act also stands dismissed. No costs. (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)