Allowed

Paaterson and Co. P.Ltd. v. Indusind Bank Ltd. and Anr.

Bombay HC10 Aug 2004ARBP/319/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioners challenged an arbitration award directing them to pay fees to the respondents. The Court held that without evidence on record regarding the fees, the award had to be set aside and deferred for fresh arbitration.

What did the court decide?

The award was set aside. The dispute is directed to be referred to arbitration again to decide on fees and limitation, permitting both parties to lead evidence.

Paaterson and Co. P.Ltd. Vs Indusind Bank Ltd. and Anr. — Arbitration | Bombay HC (2004)

¶1

¶2

IN	THE HIGH	COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
	ORDINARY	ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
	ARBITRATION	PETITION NO.319 OF 2002
M/s Paterson a	nd Co.	... Petitioners
	v/s
Industrial Ban	k Ltd. and anr.	... Respondents

¶3

Mr C	hetan	Kapadia		with	Mr	I.	Nank	ani	i/b	M/s
Nankani		and		Co.			for		Peti	tiones.
Mr H.	Bhave	with	Mr	Santosh	Pawar	i/b	M/s	Bhave	and	Co.
for									Respon	dents.

¶4

CORAM : D.K.DESHMUKH	J.
DATE : 10TH AUGUST	2004

¶5

¶6

P.C.:

¶7

1.		By	this petition fi	led under section 34 of the
Arbitration		and	Conciliation	Act 1996, the	petitioners
challenge	the	award	passed	by the Sole Arbitr	ator. The
arbitration	was	under	the	Bye-laws and Business	Rules of
National	Sec	urities	Depository	Ltd. By that	award, the
Arbitrator	has	directed	the	petitioners to pay	an amount
of Rs.3	,19,507/-	with	intere	st towards the ch	arges which
are p	ayable	by	the	petitioners to the	respondents.

¶8

After having heard learned counsel for both the sides,

¶9

following appears to be the admitted position:-

¶10

In te	rms of	the	provisions	of	the	Act,
the	Rules and	the	Bye-laws,	the	re	has to
be an	agreement	in	writ	ing	in	the
prescribed	form	betw	een	a		depository
participant	and		benefici	ary		account
holder.	Admitted		position	is	that	the
respondent	Bank	is		a		depository

¶11

participant and petitioner Company is a

¶12

beneficiary account holder.

¶13

B) It is also agreed position that there is

¶14

¶15

no agreement in writing between the petitioners and the respondents regarding the fees that can be charged by the respondents from the petitioners.

¶16

The	peti	tione	r	Company	agrees t	hat though
there		is		no agre	ement, the	petitioners
are	liable		to	pay to	the respo	ndents such
fees	as		were	being	charged	by the
respond	ents		fr	om	other	depository
particip	ants			and	from	similarly
circums	tanced			persons	in relation	to the
transact nature.	ions of	the	same	or similar

¶17

¶18

It is		also		an adm	itted	position	that
there is		no		evidence	on	record	in
relation	to		the	fees	charged	by	the
respondents	from	others	in	similar
circumstances	.

¶19

In view of these admitted positions, the award

¶20

has to be set aside as the award is made in the absence

¶21

of evidence.

¶22

The award impugned in the petition is set

¶23

¶24

aside.	The	Se	cretary	of the	N	ational		Securities
Depository		ltd.,	dealin	g with	arbitratio	ns,	is	directed
to	refer	the	dispute	between the	par	ties	to	arbitration
in acco	rdance	with	law.	The Arbit	rator	shall	dec	ide the
dispute	betw	een	the	parties after	permit	ting	both	the
parties	to	lead	evidence	to establish	what	is	the	rate

¶25

of fees and what rate can be charged by the respondents

¶26

to the petitioners.

¶27

4.		It is als	o made cl	ear that the	Arbitrator
shall	also	decide	the	question	whether	there	is	any
period	of	limitation	for	making	reference	and	if	yes
whether	the	reference	made	by	the	respondents	is	within
the	period	of	limitation	.	Petitioners	to	co	mmunicate
this	order	to th	e	Secret	ary,	National		Securities

¶28

Depository Ltd. Petition is disposed off with no order

¶29

as to costs.

¶30

. Parties to act on the copy of this order duly

¶31

authenticated by the Associate / Personal Secretary as

¶32

true copy.

¶33

Certified copy expedited.

Paaterson and Co. P.Ltd. v. Indusind Bank Ltd. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Paaterson and Co. P.Ltd. v. Indusind Bank Ltd. and Anr.

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

Green Garden Apartments Co-Ophsg.S.Ltd. Vs N.G.Sawant and Ors.

Sundaram Enterprises Vs Sunil R.Bajaj

Satyam Enterprises Vs Sunil R.Bajaj and Anr.

Shri a.S.Nanjunda Shetty Vs Tata Finance Ltd. and Anr.

M/S. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. Vs Bagwan Pandey

Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. Vs Intellect Data Systems and Software Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.