Allowed

Johnpeter Fernandes v. Saraswati Ramchandra Ghanate and Ors.

Bombay HC30 Sept 2009NMA/739/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court heard an appeal against an order rejecting a notice of motion seeking restoration of an arbitration appeal. While acknowledging the delay due to pending Full Bench decision on court fees, the court condoned the delay and allowed the motion.

What did the court decide?

Notice of motion allowed; delay in removing office objection condoned; appeal to be restored and numbered.

Johnpeter Fernandes Vs Saraswati Ramchandra Ghanate and Ors. — Arbitration | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 739 OF 2009

¶5

¶6

APPEAL (L) NO. 1024 OF 2006.

¶7

¶8

ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 275 OF 2006.

¶9

John Peter Fernandes. . .. Appellant..

¶10

Vs.

¶11

Saraswati Ramchandra Ghanate

¶12

& Ors. .. Respondents

¶13

Mr. R.V. Govilkar i/by Baptist D'Souza for the appellant.

¶14

Mr. S.S. Redij for respondent nos. 1 & 2.

¶15

CORAM : J. N. PATEL &

¶16

SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, JJ

¶17

DATE : 30TH SEPTEMBER, 2009

¶18

P.C. :

¶19

The learned counsel for the respondents states thathe

¶20

will be filing an affidavit in reply in due course but may be heard.

¶21

¶22

Heard.

¶23

This notice of motion has been taken out for setting aside the order dated 27.2.2007 passed by the Prothonotary and Senior Master rejecting the appeal under Rule 986 of the High Court Original Side Rules and for restoring the appeal to the Board after condoning the delay.

¶24

The application is opposed by the respondents.

¶25

After the appeal was filed the office haD taken out as

¶26

many as 23 objections. By the order dated 27.2.2007, the Prothonotary and Senior Master directed the appellant to remove office objections on or before 13.3.2007 failing which the Memo of Appeal was to stand rejected under Rule 986. The record shows that the appellant had removed all the objections except the last one which requires the Advocate for the appellant to check the Court Fees paid on the appeal proceedings. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that there was delay in removing the last office objection regarding court fees payable on the appeal memo as the appellant was waiting for decision of the Full Bench of this Court in

¶27

Punit Malhotra & Ors. vs. R.S. Gai, Sole Arbitrator & Ors. wherein a reference was made to the Full Bench on the issue of the

¶28

¶29

applicability of the provision of the Bombay Court Fees Act to the petitions filed challenging Award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and the court fees payable thereunder. The decision of the Full Bench has been reported in 2008 (6) Bom. C. R. 551 Since the appellant was to remove office objections on or before 13.3.2007, he could not have simply remained waiting for the decision of the Full Bench. The least that was expected of the appellant was that he made an application to the Prothonotary and Senior Master for extension of time to remove office objection on

¶30

the ground that the issue as regards payment of court fees on the petition for impugning an award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was pending decision by the Full Bench.

¶31

However, taking into consideration the interest of justice, we are inclined to allow the notice of motion by condoning delay. The notice of motion is made absolute in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b).

¶32

The advocate for the appellant to take steps for

¶33

removal of the office objection and to get the appeal numbered.

¶34

( J. N. PATEL, J)

Johnpeter Fernandes v. Saraswati Ramchandra Ghanate and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Johnpeter Fernandes v. Saraswati Ramchandra Ghanate and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

1.SHRI Sankalpa Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd, Mumbai. and 14 Others. Vs Time Field Corporation, Mumbai

Devendra Prakash Shah and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Shanti R. Bajaj Vs Arjandas Teckchand Kashyap and Anr.

Ansas Abdul Gafoor Khatib and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Mohammed Anis Mohmd.Rafiq Sadullah Vs Mohmd.Rais Sadullah and Ors.

Perviz Neville Gandhi Vs Kurush Neville Gandhi and Anr.