Allowed

Maharashtra Film Stage and Cultural Development Corpn. Ltd. v. Mr.Shabab Ahmed and Ors.

Bombay HC10 Oct 2007APP/827/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Bombay High Court allowed an appeal against interim relief granted under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act, 1996, due to the arbitrator's resignation. The order was set aside but permitted to remain operative for four weeks, and respondents were allowed to seek interim relief from the arbitrator.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; original order valid for four weeks; respondents at liberty to apply for interim relief to the arbitrator.

Maharashtra Film Stage and Cultural Development Corpn. Ltd. Vs… — Arbitration | Bombay HC (2007)

¶1

 - 1 -

¶2

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

 O.O.C.J.

¶4

 APPEAL NO.827 OF 2003

¶5

IN

¶6

 ARBITRATION PETITION NO.151 OF 2003

¶7

 Maharashtra Film, Stage & Cultural

¶8

 Development Corporation Ltd. ...Appellant

¶9

 v/s.

¶10

 Mr.Shahab Ahmed & ors. ...Respondents

¶11

 Mr.R.S.Apte i/b N.R.Bubna for the Appellant.

¶12

 Mr.B.R.Vishwakarma i/b G.H.Hiranandani for the

¶13

 Respondent No.1.

¶14

CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH&

¶15

 J.H.BHATIA, JJ.

¶16

DATED:10TH OCTOBER, 2007

¶17

 - 2 -

¶18

P.C.:

¶19

 1. By this Appeal, the Appellant challenges the
 order dated 17th April, 2003 passed in Arbitration
 Petition No.151 of 2003 passed by the learned single
 Judge of this Court granting interim relief in favour
 of the Respondents.

¶20

 2. The order has been made under the provisions
 Section 9 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act,
 1996. It is an admitted position that the Arbitrator
 was appointed and the disputes between the parties
 were referred to the arbitrator. But the Respondents
 did not pay the fees of the arbitrator. Therefore,
 the arbitrator resigned in April, 2007. From April,
 2007 till today, no steps have been taken by the
 Respondents to have either the same arbitrator
 resuming the proceedings or to have the new
 arbitrator appointed.

¶21

 3. The learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent
 No.1 candidly stated that the Respondent does not
 have any money and therefore, he could not take steps

¶22

 - 3 -

¶23

 to have the arbitral tribunal constituted. He,

¶24

 however, submits that within a period of one month
 from today, he will be able to get the arbitral
 tribunal constituted. One more aspect that is to be
 noted is under Section 17 of the Arbitration &
 Conciliation Act, power is conferred on the
 Arbitrator also to consider an application for grant
 of interim relief. In these circumstances,
 therefore, in our opinion, following order would meet
 the ends of justice.

¶25

O R D E R

¶26

 (i) Appeal is allowed. The order impugned in the
 Appeal is set aside.

¶27

 (ii) It is, however, made clear that the Respondents
 shall be at liberty to apply for the same relief
 before the learned Arbitrator and in case such an
 application is made, the Arbitrator shall consider
 that application on its own merits on the basis of
 the material produced before the Arbitrator without
 being influenced by the order impugned in the Appeal
 or by this order.

¶28

 - 4 -

¶29

 (iii) Despite the disposal of the Appeal, the order
 dated 17th April, 2003 passed in Arbitration Petition
 No.151 of 2003 shall continue to operate for a period
 of four weeks from today. It is made clear that if
 the order is not continued or other suitable order is
 not made by the Arbitrator, the order will
 automatically cease to operate.

¶30

 (iv) Appeal disposed of.

¶31

 (D.K.DESHMUKH, J.)

¶32

 (J.H.BHATIA, J.)

Maharashtra Film Stage and Cultural Development Corpn. Ltd. v. Mr.Shabab Ahmed and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maharashtra Film Stage and Cultural Development Corpn. Ltd. v. Mr.Shabab Ahmed and Ors.

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

Mcdermott International Inc. Vs Oil and Natural Gas Commiss Ion

Mcdermott International Inc. Vs Oil and Natural Gas Commiss Ion

Ajay Mehta and Ors. Vs Navinchandra a. Doshi

Faircot S.A. Vs Tata Steel Ltd.

Allwyn Gonsalves Vs Cardinal Simon Pimenta and Ors.

Larsen and Toubro Ltd. Vs Municipal Corpn. of Gr. Mumbai and Anr.