Dismissed

Sundaram Enterprises v. Sunil R.Bajaj

Bombay HC2 Aug 2004ARBP/282/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Bombay High Court entertained an arbitration petition challenging an award on grounds of territorial jurisdiction post-resignation and res judicata. The court found the challenged bills were not part of the earlier award proceedings and noted no jurisdictional bar. However, it held the petition was not maintainable under section 34 and disposed of the matter.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed for being not maintainable under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

IN	THE HIGH ORDINARY	COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ORIGINAL CIVIL	BOMBAY JURISDICTION
	ARBITRATION	PETITION NO.282 O	F 2004
Sundaram Ent	erprise v/s	... Petitioners
Sunil Rajkuma	r Bajaj and anr.	... Respondents
Mr V.	Bobde i/b	Mr G.C. Mohanty for	Petitioners.
Mr	A.R.	Mehra for	Respondents.
CORAM DATE	: :	D.K.DESHMUKH 2ND AUGUST	J. 2004

THE
HIGH
ORDINARY

COURT
OF
JUDICATURE
AT
ORIGINAL
CIVIL

BOMBAY
JURISDICTION

ARBITRATION

PETITION
NO.282
O

F
2004

Sundaram Ent

erprise
v/s

... Petitioners

Sunil Rajkuma

r Bajaj and anr.

... Respondents

Mr
V.

Bobde
i/b

Mr
G.C.
Mohanty
for

Petitioners.

A.R.

Mehra
for

Respondents.

CORAM
DATE

:
:

D.K.DESHMUKH
2ND
AUGUST

J.
2004

1.		By this petition, the petitioners challenge an
award	made	by the Arbitral Tribunal of the	Theatre
Owners	Association.	The first challenge to the aw	ard is
that	because	the petitioners resigned membership	of the
Theatre	Owners	Association in March 2003, the	said
Association	has	no jurisdiction to entertain	the
complaint.	Pe	rusal of the agreement between the	parties
dated	13th Feb	ruary 2001 shows that by agreement	between
the	parties,	the Theatre Owners Association	was
appointed	as	Arbitrators. Therefore, even assuming	that
the	petitioners	have resigned the membership of	that
Association,	it	will not be relevant for deciding	the
jurisdiction	of	the Arbitrators. The second	challenge
is t	hat in	the earlier award, claims made under	bill
Nos.101,	105	and 108 were awarded and therefore,	they
cannot	be	subject matter of the present	arbitration.
The	petitioners	have not produced the earlier	award,
however,	the	learned counsel for respondents	has
produced	before	me the statement of claim in the	earlier
proceedings	.	That shows that bills from 15th	September
2001	i.e.	bill No.17 till 27th October 2001 i.e.	bill
No.97	were	subject matters of the earlier	proceedings.

By this petition, the petitioners challenge an

award

made

by
the
Arbitral
Tribunal
of
the

Theatre

Owners

Association.

The
first
challenge
to
the
aw

ard
is

that

because

the
petitioners
resigned
membership

of
the

Theatre

Owners

Association
in
March
2003,
the

said

Association

has

no
jurisdiction
to
entertain

the

complaint.

rusal
of
the
agreement
between
the

parties

dated

13th
Feb

ruary
2001
shows
that
by
agreement

between

the

parties,

the
Theatre
Owners
Association

was

appointed

Arbitrators.
Therefore,
even
assuming

that

the

petitioners

have
resigned
the
membership
of

that

Association,

will
not
be
relevant
for
deciding

the

jurisdiction

the
Arbitrators.
The
second

challenge

is
t

hat
in

the
earlier
award,
claims
made
under

bill

Nos.101,

105

and
108
were
awarded
and
therefore,

they

cannot

subject
matter
of
the
present

arbitration.

The

petitioners

have
not
produced
the
earlier

award,

however,

the

learned
counsel
for
respondents

has

produced

before

me
the
statement
of
claim
in
the

earlier

proceedings

That
shows
that
bills
from
15th

September

2001

i.e.

bill
No.17
till
27th
October
2001
i.e.

bill

No.97

were

subject
matters
of
the
earlier

proceedings.

These	bills	are	not	the	subject		matter	of	present
proceeding.		The	bills	which	are		subject	matter	of
present		proceeding	appear	to	be	for	subsequent		period.

These

bills

are

not

the

subject

matter

present

proceeding.

The

bills

which

are

subject

matter

present

proceeding

appear

for

subsequent

period.

Sundaram Enterprises v. Sunil R.Bajaj

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sundaram Enterprises v. Sunil R.Bajaj

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mrs. Agnes Rodrigues Vs M/S. the Oberoi Towers

Icici Ltd. (Debenture Trustees) Vs Cable Corpn. of India Ltd. .

Mysore Fruit Product Ltd. Vs the Custodian

Satyam Enterprises Vs Sunil R.Bajaj and Anr.

Sachinam Enterprises Vs Sunil Rajkumar Bajaj and Anr.

Mrs. Balvinder Kaur Purswani Vs Libord Securites Ltd. and Anr.