1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.290 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO.6596 OF 2010 Bajirao s/o Budhaji Shinde, R/o-Vaibhav Nivas, Ekvira Chowk, Pipeline Road, Tq-Nagar, Dist-Ahmednagar. ...APPELLANT. VERSUS 1) Satish s/o Budhaji Shinde, R/o-Yugandhar, Link Road, Bhushan Nagar, Kedgaon, Dist-Ahmednagar and others. ...RESPONDENTS. ... Shri.S.V. Natu Advocate h/f. Shri. K.M. Lokhande Advocate for Appellant. Shri.G.K. Thigle, Advocate for Respondent No.1. ... CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL AND SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, JJ. DATE : 16TH NOVEMBER, 2010. 2 PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Shri. Natu, learned counsel appearing for the Appellant submits that the learned Single Judge ought not to have allowed the Petition by quashing the impugned order passed by the trial Court on 26th February, 2010 below Exhibit 49. According to Mr. Natu, Application Exhibit 19 was argued and not Exhibit 21. 3. We have perused the impugned orders. We do not find any error in the view adopted by the learned Single Judge in this regard. Learned Single Judge has passed a reasoned order. 4. The next apprehension expressed by the learned counsel Shri Natu is in relation to the observation made by the learned Single Judge in Para No.8 of the impugned order wherein the 3 contention raised by the Appellant to the extent that 'the term "business matter" would not itself mean matter relating to expulsion of partner' was rejected by the learned Single Judge. The apprehension is that in case the Appellant desires to raise issue of jurisdiction in respect of the subject matter referred to the Arbitrator, then prejudice will be caused to the Appellant as his argument was rejected by the learned Single Judge on this ground in Para No.8 of the impugned order. 5. We have heard the submissions advanced by Shri. Thigle, learned counsel for the Respondent No.1. 6. We are not inclined to interfere in the impugned order. We clarify that the Appellant's right to raise issue in respect of jurisdiction of the Arbitral Tribunal in accordance with the provisions of Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 shall not be affected due to observations made by the learned Single Judge 4 in Para No.8 of the impugned order. The Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed. [SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL, J.] asb/NOV10/lpa290.10