The Bombay High Court's recent judgment in Sahakar Ventures v. Rohan Virani reaffirms the broad powers of arbitral tribunals under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to order interim disclosure of information, even in complex partnership disputes. The Court dismissed a challenge to an arbitral order directing disclosure of project costs and financial records, holding that partners retain their statutory rights to access firm records pending final adjudication of their entitlements.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The dispute arises from a partnership firm, Sahakar Ventures, constituted under a Partnership Deed dated 26.03.2019
Case Details
Sahakar Ventures And Ors. v. Rohan Virani And Ors.
Court
High Court of Judicature at Bombay (Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction in its Commercial Division)
Date
12 June 2026
Case Number
Commercial Arbitration Petition (L) No. 28408 of 2025
Bench
Somasekhar Sundaresan, J.
Counsel
Pet: Mr. Rajiv Narula a/w Ms. Nidhi Loya i/b Jhangiani i/b Narulla & Associates
Res: Ms. Fereshte Sethna a/w Mohit Tiwari, Parkalathan Bathey, Naomi Ting, Sushmita Chauhan & Tarang Saraogi i/b DMD Advocates
Frequently Asked Questions
Under Section 17, an arbitral tribunal has powers akin to a Section 9 court to order interim measures in aid of arbitration proceedings. This includes directing disclosure of records, preservation of assets, or other relief necessary to prevent prejudice to the arbitration process. The Bombay High Court held that such powers are broad and may be exercised even where partnership entitlements are disputed.
No. The Court held that unilateral termination of a partner’s interest is invalid where the Partnership Deed requires mutual consent for structural changes. Section 12 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 also protects a partner’s right to inspect books, which cannot be extinguished without due process. Allegations of non-contribution or misconduct must be proven at trial and do not justify interlocutory exclusion.
No. The Court clarified that Section 12 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 guarantees every partner the right to access, inspect, and copy firm books, irrespective of capital contributions. Even if a partner has not contributed as alleged, this does not forfeit their statutory rights pending final adjudication. The burden of proof lies on the party alleging default or abandonment.
The Court distinguished Gattu Lal v. Gulab Singh (1985) 1 SCC 432, where the Supreme Court denied benefits to a partner who abandoned his role and did not contribute to litigation expenses. In this case, Rohan’s 10% partnership share was recorded, and his right to inspect books was contractually and statutorily protected. The Court held that Gattu Lal was inapplicable to interlocutory disputes over disclosure of records.
