Jammu & Kashmir High Court
2026:Jklhc-Jmu:1232 vs Brite Neon Signs Pvt. Through on 24 April, 2026
Author: Sanjeev Kumar
Bench: Sanjeev Kumar
2026:JKLHC-JMU:1232
Sr. No.01
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
Arb P No. 9/2021
M/s Brite Enterprises
Through its partner Sh. Rohit Mahajan
S/O T.C. Mahajan.
R/O Dashmesh Nagar, Digiana, Jammu. .....Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s)
Through: Mr. Amit Khajuria, Advocate.
Vs
01. Brite Neon Signs Pvt. Through ..... Respondent(s)
its Managing Director Shailendera Luthra
C/O 14 C/C, Gandhi Nagar, Near PNB Bank,
Jammu.
02. Sankalp Aggarwal S/O Anil Kumar Aggarwal
R/O Achal H. No. 15 Justice Narain Path,
Nageshwarr Colony, Boring Road, Patna
800001.
Through: Mr. R.K. Gupta, Sr. Advocate with
HMr.
I GUdhay
H Bhaskar, Advocate for R-1.
O F JMr.
AM M UGupta,
Sachin & Advocate for R-2.
COURT
KASHMIR AND
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE
LADAKH
ORDER
24.04.2026
01. This petition has been filed by one, Sh. Rohit Mahajan, for and on behalf
of M/s Brite Enterprises, a partnership firm, under Section 11(6) of
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1966 (hereinafter, referred to as “the
Act”), seeking appointment of an independent Arbitrator.
02. Upon notice, the respondents have caused their appearance through their
respective learned counsels.
03. Mr. Sachin Gupta, Advocate appearing for respondent No. 2, raises a
preliminary objection to the maintainability of this petition on the ground
Arb P No. 9/2021 Page 1 of 5
2026:JKLHC-JMU:1232
that Sh. Rohit Mahajan is not entitled to seek appointment of Arbitrator
without the consent of other partner i.e., respondent No. 2 whom he
represents.
04. Mr. Sachin Gupta Advocate, has submitted that there is no dispute that
M/s Brite Enterprises is a firm constituted in terms of Deed of
Partnership dated 27.10.2016 between the petitioner-Rohit Mahajan and
respondent No. 2. It is not disputed that there is a business
agreement/memorandum of understanding between the firm-Brite
Enterprises and respondent No. 1 i.e., Brite Neon Signs Pvt. Ltd.
05. Mr. Gupta, appearing counsel for respondent No. 2, however, argues that
in absence of respondent No. 2, other partner of the firm Brite
Enterprises, Mr. Rohit Mahajan, alone is not entitled to seek submission
of dispute for resolution by invoking the arbitration clause contained in
OF JAMMU &
HIGH
the Memorandum of Understanding dated 02.12.2016. He places reliance
KASHMIR AND
COURT
L A D A K Act,
upon Section 19 of the Partnership H 1932 and the judgment on the
point rendered by the High Court of Kerala in the case of “M/s P.K.
Chandrasekharan Nair &Co. Vs. M/S Hindustan Petroleum
Corporation Ltd.” AR No. 96 of 2025 decided on 26.11.2025.
06. Per contra, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the
reading of Section 19 (2) (a) of the Partnership Act indicates that
submission of dispute relating to the business of the firm to arbitration
by a partner, without the express or implied consent of the other
partner/partners, may not be permissible in law but under Section 21 of
the partnership Act, the partner has been allowed to act in an emergency
Arb P No. 9/2021 Page 2 of 5
2026:JKLHC-JMU:1232
to do all such acts as may be required for the purpose of protecting the
firm from loss. He further argues that authority to do all such acts for the
purpose of protecting the firm from loss would include taking the matter
to the Arbitrator for resolution of the dispute in the best interest of the
firm.
07. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
08. The facts are not in dispute that Brite Enterprises is a firm constituted by
petitioner-Mr. Rohit Mahajan and respondent No. 2-Sankalp Aggarwal
in terms of a Deed of Partnership made and executed on 27.10.2016. It is
also not in dispute that the application in terms of Section 11 (6) of the
Act has been moved by Rohit Mahajan for and on behalf of the firm
without there being any express or implied consent/authority of the other
partner i.e., respondent No. 2.
OF JAMMU &
HIGH
09. K A Sbetween
There may be a dispute HMIR the A ND
partnership firm, Brite Enterprises
COURT
LA
and respondent No. 1 and DA
such K H may be arbitrable in view of the
dispute
specific arbitrary clause contained in the Memorandum of Understanding
entered into between the Brite Enterprises and respondent No. 1 on
02.12.2016. However, the question for determination is whether one of
the partners of Brite Enterprises i.e., Sh. Rohit Mahajan is entitled to
seek the submission of dispute relating to the business of firm to
arbitration by invoking Section 11 (6) of the Act. The answer to this
question has to be no and emphatic no in view of specific provision of
Section 19 of the Partnership Act, is set out below.
“19. Implied authority of partner as agent of the firm.–
(1) Subject to the provisions of section 22, the act of a
Arb P No. 9/2021 Page 3 of 5
2026:JKLHC-JMU:1232partner which is done to carry on, in the usual way,
business of the kind carried on by the firm, binds the
firm. The authority of a partner to bind the firm
conferred by this section is called his “implied
authority”. (2) In the absence of any usage or custom of
trade to the contrary, the implied authority of a partner
does not empower him to– (a) submit a dispute
relating to the business of the firm to arbitration, (b)
open a banking account on behalf of the firm in his own
name, (c) compromise or relinquish any claim or
portion of a claim by the firm, (d) withdraw a suit or
proceeding filed on behalf of the firm, (e)admit any
liability in a suit or proceeding against the firm, (f)
acquire immovable property on behalf of the firm, (h)
transfer immovable property belonging to the firm, or
(g) enter into partnership on behalf of the firm.”
10. From reading of Section 19, it clearly transpires that an act of the partner
which is done to carry out, in the usual way, business of the kind carried
on by the firm, would binds the firm. Such authority vested in the partner
to act for carrying out the business of the firm in usual way is termed as
„implied authority‟ O
of FtheJ partner.
AMMU & is, however, subject to the
This
HIGH
provisions of sub K A S H2Mwhich
section IR A N D implied authority of the
excludes
COURT
partner for doing certain Lthings
ADA K H interalia, include submission of a
which
dispute relating to the business of firm to arbitration. This, is, further,
subject to any usage or custom of trade to the contrary. In the instant
case, learned counsel for the petitioner, could not point out any usage or
custom of trade which permits such implied authority in favour of a
partner by the firm.
11. Indisputably, filing of an application under Section 11(6) for
appointment of Arbitrator is an act towards submission of the dispute
relating to the business of the firm to arbitration, and therefore, clearly
beyond the authority of a partner.
Arb P No. 9/2021 Page 4 of 5
2026:JKLHC-JMU:1232
12. The argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that Section 21
permits a partner to act in an emergency to do all such acts for the
purpose of protecting the firm from loss is also without substance and
deserves to be rejected. The appointment of the Arbitrator and thereafter,
if the arbitrator is appointed, submission of disputes relating to the
business of firm to Arbitrator is long drawn process and cannot be
construed as a measure of emergency for saving/protecting the firm from
loss.
13. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the position of law
explained hereinabove and similar view taken by High Court of Kerala
in case of”M/s P.K. Chandrasekharan Nair &Co. Vs. M/S Hindustan
Petroleum Corporation Ltd.“, this petition is held to be not maintainable
and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. However, dismissal of this
OF JAMMU &
H Iway
petition shall not come in the GH of the petitioner to explore appropriate
KASHMIR AND
COURT
L A Dlaw.
remedy available to him under AKH
(Sanjeev Kumar)
Judge
Jammu
24.04.2026
Renu
Whether the order is speaking? Yes
Whether the order is reportable? Yes
Arb P No. 9/2021 Page 5 of 5
[ad_1]
Source link
