Allowed

M/S.Thakkar and Associates v. Union of India and 2 Ors.

Bombay HC7 Sept 2007ARBP/219/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed an arbitral award by consent of the parties on the ground that the arbitrator failed to consider a modified claim. The court directed the respondent to constitute a new arbitral tribunal for de novo adjudication.

What did the court decide?

Award dated 5th March, 2007 quashed; directions for constituting a new Arbitral Tribunal for de novo adjudication.

M/S.Thakkar and Associates Vs Union of India and 2 Ors. — Arbitration | Bombay HC (2007)

¶1

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
 O.O.C.J.

¶2

 Arbitration Petition No. 219 of 2007

¶3

 M/s Thakkar and Associates ..Petitioner

¶4

vs.

¶5

 Union of India and another ..Respondent

¶6

 Mr.P.K.Dhakephalkar, Sr.Advocate i/b
 Mr.V.R.Hukmani for petitioner.
 Mr.T.J.Pandian for respondent no.1

¶7

CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J
7th September,2007

¶8

P.C.

¶9

 1. Heard Mr.Dhakephalkar, Senior Counsel for the

¶10

 petitioners and Mr.Pandian for respondent no.1.

¶11

 2. In the submission of Mr.Dhakephalkar, the award
 is vitiated on the face of it because the
 Arbitrator failed to notice that the petitioners
 had first forwarded the claim for adjudication to
 the Arbitral Tribunal. However, the claim was
 revised to the knowledge of the respondent and that
 of the Tribunal. Even during the course of
 reference, the submissions were canvassed and
 material produced with regard to the modified
 claim. In such circumstances, failure on the part
 of the Arbitral Tribunal to consider the modified

¶12

 claim vitiates the entire award. In all fairness
 Mr.Dhakephalkar states that the petitioners are
 ready and willing to go before the same Tribunal

¶13

 and have the reference adjudicated expeditiously.

¶14

 3. Mr.Pandian appearing for the respondent could
 not dispute the above fact in as much as the
 grounds mentioned in the petition have not been
 controverted. In fact, Mr.Pandian consented to the
 award being set aside on this ground alone.

¶15

 4. Accordingly, by consent of parties, award dated
 5th March, 2007 impugned in this petition is
 quashed and set aside.

¶16

 5. Mr.Pandian states that a panel containing the
 names of Arbitrators would be forwarded to the
 petitioners within a period of six weeks from
 today. The petitioners to give their consent with
 regard to the appointment of 3 Arbitrators from the
 said panel. Accordingly, the Union of India would
 constitute the Arbitral Tribunal through the
 subject department, namely, General Manager,
 Central Railways and inform the petitioners of such
 constitution. Thereafter the Arbitral Tribunal
 shall post the reference for de novo adjudication.

¶17

 6. Mr.Dhakephalkar states that within two weeks
 from the date of receipt of list of names of the
 Arbitrators, the petitioners would forward their
 consent with regard to the appointment of

¶18

 Arbitrators. The petition is allowed with the

¶19

 above directions. No order as to costs.

¶20

 7. Needless to state that the Court has not gone

¶21

 into the merits of the claim nor has adjudicated

¶22

 upon the rival contentions in that behalf. The

¶23

 same are expressly kept open for being raised by

¶24

 both sides.

¶25

(S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J.)

M/S.Thakkar and Associates v. Union of India and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.Thakkar and Associates v. Union of India and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhanwarlal Motilal Doshi Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bhanwarlal Motilal Doshi Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Dena Bank Vs Jammatmal K.Narwani.

Chandravardhan B. Parekh Vs the Board of Control for Cricket in India

Thiriti Keki Balsara Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Karvy Stock Broking Ltd. (Trading Member) Vs Nimpha Rodrigues and Anr.