In this arbitration petition, the Bench directed that proceedings filed under Section 9 be treated as Section 17 proceedings, allowing supplementary affidavits. The petition was later disposed of.
Directions treated under Section 9 as Section 17 proceedings; permitted supplementary affidavits within one week.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1 of 2
906-arbp-218-2012
srk
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ARBITRATION PETITION NO.218 OF 2012
Andesoft Consulting Pvt.Ltd. ...Petitioner
Versus
Cipla Ltd. ...Respondents
Ms.Naira Variava i/b. Bharucha & Partner for Petitioner. Ms.Ethel Parera with Mr.Abhijeet Sonawane i/b. Hariani & Co. for Respondents.
CORAM: S.J.KATHAWALLA, J.
June 26, 2012.
P.C.
Heard Learned Advocates for the parties and the following order is
passed.
The proceedings filed by the Petitioner under Section 9 of the Act,
shall be treated by the Learned Arbitrator as proceedings under
Section 17 of the Act. However, the parties are entitled to file
supplementary Affidavits if any, within a period of one week from
2 of 2
906-arbp-218-2012
today.
The Arbitration Petition accordingly stands disposed of.
(S.J.KATHAWALLA, J.)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether proceedings initiated under arbitration Section 9 should be treated as proceedings under Section 17.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Andesoft Consulting Pvt. Ltd.
Cipla Ltd.
S.J. KATHAWALLA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
