Bombay High Court Allows Arbitration Petition and Interim Application in Share Dispute — Appointment of Arbitrator and Injunction Granted. Court holds that disputes regarding share transfer and oppression are arbitrable and appoints arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY In Favour of Prosecution
  • 122
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioner, Kantilal Chhaganlal Securities Pvt. Ltd., filed an Arbitration Petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, along with an Interim Application under Section 9 of the same Act, seeking appointment of an arbitrator and interim relief against the respondents, Viveka Kumari and another. The dispute arose out of a shareholders' agreement concerning share transfer and alleged oppression. The court considered the arbitrability of the disputes and the need for interim protection. The court held that the disputes were arbitrable and appointed an arbitrator to adjudicate the matter. Additionally, the court granted an interim injunction restraining the respondents from transferring or encumbering the shares in question pending the arbitration proceedings. The decision was based on the existence of a valid arbitration agreement and the need to preserve the subject matter of the dispute.

Headnote

A) Arbitration Law - Appointment of Arbitrator - Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Dispute regarding share transfer and oppression - Court held that disputes are arbitrable and appointed an arbitrator to adjudicate the matter. (Paras 1-10)

B) Arbitration Law - Interim Relief - Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Injunction against transfer of shares - Court granted interim injunction to protect the rights of the petitioner pending arbitration. (Paras 1-10)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether disputes regarding share transfer and alleged oppression are arbitrable and whether an arbitrator should be appointed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The court allowed the Arbitration Petition and appointed an arbitrator. The Interim Application was also allowed, granting an interim injunction restraining the respondents from transferring or encumbering the shares pending arbitration.

Law Points

  • Arbitrability of disputes relating to share transfer
  • oppression and mismanagement
  • Appointment of arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act
  • 1996
  • Interim relief under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act
  • Validity of arbitration agreement in shareholders' agreement
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2026 LawText (BOM) (04) 23

Arbitration Petition No. 1057 of 2014 with Interim Application (L) No. 9261 of 2025 with Notice of Motion No. 2163 of 2016 in Arbitration Petition No. 1057 of 2014

0000-00-00

Soma Sekhar Sundaresan, J.

Mr. Pesi Modi, Senior Advocate, a/w Ms. Kalpana Desai, Mr. Pranav Nair, Mr. Abhineet Sharma & Ms. Riya Gokalgandhi, i/b Chambers of Abhineet, for the Petitioner. Ms. Shreya Gupta, a/w Ms. Swagata Ghosh, i/b Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas & Co. for the Respondent No.1.

Kantilal Chhaganlal Securities Pvt. Ltd.

Viveka Kumari & Anr

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Arbitration petition for appointment of arbitrator and interim relief under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Remedy Sought

Appointment of an arbitrator and interim injunction restraining transfer of shares.

Filing Reason

Dispute regarding share transfer and alleged oppression under a shareholders' agreement.

Issues

Whether the disputes are arbitrable under the arbitration agreement. Whether an arbitrator should be appointed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Whether interim relief under Section 9 should be granted.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner argued that there is a valid arbitration agreement and disputes are arbitrable. Respondent opposed the appointment of arbitrator and interim relief.

Ratio Decidendi

Disputes relating to share transfer and oppression arising from a shareholders' agreement are arbitrable. The court has power to appoint an arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and grant interim relief under Section 9 to preserve the subject matter of the dispute.

Judgment Excerpts

The court held that the disputes are arbitrable and appointed an arbitrator. Interim injunction granted to protect the rights of the petitioner.

Procedural History

The petitioner filed Arbitration Petition No. 1057 of 2014 under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, along with Interim Application (L) No. 9261 of 2025 and Notice of Motion No. 2163 of 2016. The court heard the parties and reserved judgment.

Acts & Sections

  • Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: Section 9, Section 11
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Convict's Challenge to Premature Release Categorization in Murder by Burning Case. Court upholds State's classification under Category 2(c) of 2010 Guidelines for offence of murder by burning, rejecting claim for more bene...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Petition Challenging Tender Process for Coal Supply. The court held that the evaluation committee's decision to open price bids was within its discretion and not vitiated by mala fides.