Disposed

Mr Vijay Karbhari Rohmare v. Mr Ashok Karbhari Rohmare...

Bombay HC25 Mar 2013ARA/57/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of an arbitration appeal filed under section 37 against an order dismissing a section 9 application for interim measures. Finding gross delay and disposal of partnership properties by respondents, the Court directed the arbitrator to complete proceedings within one year on merits.

What did the court decide?

Order dismissing section 9 application due to gross delay; Arbitrator to conclude proceedings within one year.

Mr Vijay Karbhari Rohmare Vs Mr Ashok Karbhari Rohmare... — Arbitration | Bombay HC (2013)

kvm

1/3

ARA57.12

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶5

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶6

ARBITRATION APPEAL NO. 57 OF 2012

Vijay K. Rohmare

..... Appellant

VERSUS

Ashok K. Rohmare & Ors.

¶11

..... Respondents

¶12

Mr.P.B.Shah for the Appellant.

¶13

Mr.P.N.Joshi for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

¶14

Mr.R.V.Govilkar for Respondent Nos. 3 to 5.

¶15

CORAM : R.D. DHANUKA, J.

¶16

DATED : 25^th MARCH, 2013

¶17

P.C.

¶18

By this appeal filed under section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the appellant seeks to challenge the order dated 13^th July, 2012 passed by the learned District Judge – 6, Pune in Miscellaneous Application No. 138 of 2006 filed by the appellant under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 by which the application filed by the appellant for interim measures came to be dismissed.

kvm

2/3

ARA57.12

It is not in dispute that for about 6 years, the said application filed by the appellant under section 9 was pending before the learned District Judge during which there was no interim order of injunction in favour of the appellant. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that all these properties are partnership assets which are sought to be sold by the respondents.

¶23

Mr.Shah, the learned counsel submits that atleast plot no. 5 which is also an asset of the partnership firm according to the appellant has not been disposed of so far as by the respondents. This statement is disputed by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. The respondents through their learned counsel have filed affidavits in support of their plea that all the properties which were subject matter of the application filed under section 9 are already disposed of and the same are in possession of the third parties.

¶24

Perusal of the order passed by the learned District Judge indicates that there is gross delay on the part of the appellant. Application was pending for last 6 years when there was no interim order passed in favour of the appellant. The learned District Judge has prima facie come to the conclusion that the properties are already disposed of. Part of the properties were also disposed of to the knowledge of the appellant.

kvm

3/3

ARA57.12

In view of the fact that appellant who is claimant in the arbitration proceedings and such proceedings are pending before the learned arbitrator, it would be appropriate if the proceedings pending before the learned arbitrator are expedited.

¶29

The learned arbitrator is requested to dispose of the arbitration proceedings expeditiously and within one year from today.

¶30

The learned counsel appearing for the parties states that they would cooperate with each other and with the learned arbitrator in disposal of the proceedings expeditiously. Statement is accepted.

¶31

It is made clear that the observations made by the learned District Judge in the impugned order are tentative.

¶32

The learned arbitrator shall decide the matter on its own merits without

¶33

being influenced by the observations made by the learned District Judge.

¶34

For the reasons recorded aforesaid, the appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs.

¶35

[R.D. DHANUKA, J.]

Mr Vijay Karbhari Rohmare v. Mr Ashok Karbhari Rohmare...

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Vijay Karbhari Rohmare v. Mr Ashok Karbhari Rohmare...

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

SBI Global Factors Ltd. Vs Sanjay Engineers and Fabricators Pvt. Ltd. and 2 Ors.

Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai Vs M/S Hoarding Hawk

Dr. Rahul Rajkumar Jawanjal Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Viacom 18 Private Limited Vs Snajay Gadhvi

Dharmraj S. Shukla and 2 Ors. Vs Gkb Optplabs Pvt. Ltd.

Isgec Heavy Engineering Limited Vs Hpcl Biofuels Limited and 2 Ors.