Disposed

Jagruti Arvind Shah and Anr. v. Suresh Sunderdas Harpalani and Ors.

Bombay HC14 Jan 2011CHS/1371/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This arbitration petition, filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act, 1996, sought continuation of a status quo interim order granted in 2009. After appointing an arbitrator, the court held there was no need to interfere with the existing order and disposed of the petition.

What did the court decide?

The present interim order shall continue till the Arbitration proceedings/ award attains finality.

Jagruti Arvind Shah and Anr. Vs Suresh Sunderdas Harpalani and Ors. — Arbitration | Bombay HC (2011)

arbp52.08.sxw

ssm

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 52 OF 2008

¶5

WITH

¶6

CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 1371 OF 2010

¶7

Jagruti Arvind Shah & Anr. ....Petitioners. Vs. Suresh Sunderdas Harpalani & Ors. ....Respondents.

¶8

Mr. Rajeev Narula a/w Mr. Basant Tilokani a/w Mr. P. Patel i/by M/s. Jhangiani, Narula & Associates for the Petitioners. Ms. Aparna Murlidharan i/by Mr. P.G. Lad for Respondent No.1A. Mr. V.N. Tendulkar for Respondent Nos. 4,5 and 6(a) to 6(c).

¶9

CORAM : ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.

¶10

DATE : 14^th JANUARY, 2011

¶11

P.C.:

¶12

The petition is under Section 9 of the Arbitration and

¶13

Conciliation Act, 1996, (for short the Act) is pending since 31^st January, 2008. By the order dated 17^th February, 2009, while admitting the Petition this Court has directed the parties to maintain the status-quo in respect of the property which forms the subject matter of agreement dated 7^th February, 2007 having arbitration clause.

¶14

2 By order dated 7th January, 2011, after hearing the parties, this Court has appointed an Arbitrator under Section 11 of the Act. The

arbp52.08.sxw

ssm

matter is pending before the sole Arbitrator. Considering the averments made and in view of the fact that the interim protection as already granted, is in force since February, 2009 and as the Court has already appointed an Arbitrator, I see there is no reason to interfere with the said order. In the interest of justice and to avoid further complications, it is necessary that the order to continue till the final decision and/or award passed by the Arbitrator and/or award attains finality.

¶19

3 Therefore, the present petition is disposed of with the observation that the interim order, so granted earlier, shall continue till the Arbitration proceedings/ award attains finality. However, the liberty is granted to the Respondents to apply for appropriate order and/or modification of the interim order so passed before the learned Arbitrator. It is made clear that all the rights and contentions are kept open to hear before the Arbitrator. The Petition is accordingly disposed of with no order as to costs.

¶20

4 In view of disposal of the Petition, nothing survives in Chamber

¶21

Summons No. 1371 of 2010 and the same is also disposed of.

¶22

(ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)

Jagruti Arvind Shah and Anr. v. Suresh Sunderdas Harpalani and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagruti Arvind Shah and Anr. v. Suresh Sunderdas Harpalani 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

Chimanlal Amichand Doshi and Ors. Vs Abhudaya Co-Op Bank Ltd.

Rakesh Chimanlal Doshi and Chimanlal Amichand Doshi Vs Abhudaya Co-Operative Bank Ltd. and S.M. Nadagauda

Kirtikumar a. Doshi and Chimanlal Amichand Doshi Vs Abhudaya Co-Operative Bank Ltd. and S.M.Nadagauda

Jagruti Arvind Shah and Anr. Vs Suresh Sunderdas Harpalani and Ors.

Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Vs M/S. Kadbrotec Engineering Industries

L and T Finance Ltd. Vs Vejanandbhai P. Karetha and Anr.