In response to each of those assertions in the complaint, Bansal responded: 'Neither admitted nor denied and leaves to their strict proofs on this issue.'īansal also filed a counterclaim alleging causes of action for shareholder oppression, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, fraudulent inducement, and bad faith. 2A:23B-3(c) that the NJUAA authorized the court, upon application of a party, to appoint an arbitrator and that the NJUAA authorized a party to commence a summary action to have the court appoint an arbitrator.

In paragraphs six, twenty-three, and twenty-four of her verified complaint, Chakrala alleged that the arbitration clause in the Agreement was governed by New Jersey's version of the Uniform Arbitration Act (NJUAA), N.J.S.A. Thereafter, the parties' accusations escalated and Chakrala filed a verified complaint and order to show cause, seeking to compel arbitration.

Chakrala responded by sending Bansal a letter dated May 7, 2008, purporting to terminate the Agreement, and alleging Bansal had breached the agreement and had 'not significantly added to the growth' of the practice. Bansal attempted to have Chakrala restructure the Practice as a limited liability company, as provided for in the Agreement. In May 2008 the parties became embroiled in a dispute that irreparably damaged their working relationship. The arbitration clause provides:Īny disputes under this greement or related to this greement shall be decided outside the NJ court system and within the guidelines set forth for binding arbitration as is customary in the State of New Jersey. The Agreement also states that New Jersey law governs performance under the Agreement as well as any disputes under the Agreement, and the parties will arbitrate any disputes arising under the Agreement. The Agreement states that Bansal has the right to require Chakrala to change the structure of the Practice from a corporation to a limited liability company after December 31, 2007. When both parties worked during the same period, they would share equally the net profits generated during that time. being ON for months.' Each party would be compensated by receiving the net profit, less twenty percent retained earnings, for the three months the party worked.

Each party agreed to work 'on a months on and months off rotation period, the first such period to commence as of or with Dr. Bansal, who was employed by Capital Health Systems, N.J., agreed to leave her position to accept a fifty percent interest in the Practice. P.C., an incorporated medical practice (the Practice). According to the Agreement, Chakrala1 was the sole shareholder of Dr. Plaintiff, Aruna Chakrala, M.D., and defendant Sudha Bansal, M.D., entered into a partnership agreement (the Agreement) dated May 1, 2006. The Law Division dismissed her action and she appealed. Sudha Bansal, filed a Law Division action to confirm in part, modify in part, and vacate in part the arbitration awards issued by the American Arbitration Association (AAA). Dissatisfied with the arbitration awards, defendant, Dr. This appeal involves a dispute between doctors about their medical practice. The opinion of the court was delivered by On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Mercer County, Docket No.

Aruna chakrala