Allowed

Neptune Marine Pvt. Ltd. v. Meecon Pvt. Ltd.

Bombay HC7 Aug 2012APP/346/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an appeal against the dismissal of a summons for amendment of an arbitration petition. The court permitted the appellant to challenge a supplementary arbitration award within the existing proceedings rather than requiring a fresh petition.

What did the court decide?

Chamber summons No.418 of 2012 allowed; Appellant permitted to amend arbitration petition within four weeks.

Neptune Marine Pvt. Ltd. Vs Meecon Pvt. Ltd. — Arbitration | Bombay HC (2012)

kambli

App346.12

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY.

¶5

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶6

APPEAL NO.346 OF 2012 IN CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.418 OF 2012 IN

¶7

ARBITRATION PETITION NO.608 OF 2008

¶8

Neptune Marine Pvt.Ltd. ...Appellant v/s.

¶9

Mecon Pvt.Ltd. ...Respondent

¶10

Mr.Karl Tamboly with Mr.Som Sinha i/b Dhiren Shah for appellant. Mr.Naresh Ratnani with Ms.Priyanka Pawar i/b Ashwin Ankhad Associates for respondent.

¶11

CORAM: MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. & N.M. JAMDAR, J. DATE : 7 August 2012.

¶12

P.C.

¶13

This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 4 April 2012 of the learned single Judge dismissing the chamber summons taken out by the appellant (petitioner in arbitration petition No.608 of 2008) for amendment of the arbitration petition.

¶14

Arbitration petition no.608 of 2008 has been filed under section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for challenging the award dated 18 August 2008 passed by the learned arbitrator. By order dated 25 March 2011, the learned single Judge adjourned the hearing of the arbitration petition for a period of three months in order to enable the parties to take steps

1 Of 3

kambli 2

App346.12

under section 34(4) of the Act, so that the arbitrator can resume the arbitral proceeding or take such other actions as the arbitrator may consider necessary to eliminate the grounds for setting aside the award. Accordingly by order dated 25 March 2011, the learned single Judge adjourned the hearing of the arbitration petition for a period of three months. Pursuant to the above liberty granted by the learned single Judge, the parties went back to the learned arbitrator to raise two additional points and ultimately by the supplementary award dated 30 January 2012 the learned arbitrator rejected the plea raised by the respondent before the arbitrator.

¶19

Aggrieved by the above supplementary award dated 30 January 2012, the appellant moved chamber summons No.418 of 2012 for permission to amend the memo of arbitration petition No.608 of 2008. The learned single Judge has dismissed the chamber summons on the ground that the appellant cannot be allowed to challenge the second award in a proceeding which was instituted before passing of the additional award and should file an independent petition.

¶20

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are unable to appreciate the reasoning which appealed to the learned single Judge. The second award or the additional award dated 30 January 2012 does not decide any independent dispute between the parties, but merely dealt with two of the issues raised by the appellant for challenging the first award dated 18 August 2008. The learned single Judge was, therefore, in error in dismissing the chamber summons.

2 Of 3

3 App346.12

kambli

We , therefore, allow this appeal and set aside judgment and order dated 4 April 2012 of the learned single Judge and allow chamber summons No.418 of 2012.

¶25

The appellant is accordingly permitted to amend the memo of arbitration petition No.608 of 2008 for challenging the supplementary award dated 30 January 2012 in terms of schedule to the chamber summons. The amendment shall be carried out within four weeks from today. The respondent may file reply within six weeks from the date they are supplied with the copy of the amended arbitration petition.

¶26

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶27

(N.M. JAMDAR, J.)

¶28

3 Of 3

Neptune Marine Pvt. Ltd. v. Meecon Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Neptune Marine Pvt. Ltd. v. Meecon Pvt. Ltd.

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

Jeumont Electric Vs Jsw Ispat Steel Limited and Ispat Energy Limited

Murmansk Shipping Co. Vs Adani Power Rajasthan Ltd. and Anr.

M/S. Resources of Aviation Redressal Association Vs the Union of India and 2 Ors.

Mr. Madhukar Chindhu Malkar Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sou. Arati Ashok Patil Vs State of Maharashtra, through Tahasildar and Ors.

Sou. Arati Ashok Patil Vs State of Maharashtra, through Tahasildar and Ors.