Anil P Gupta, Prop. of Laxmi Impex v. Yuvak Fine Lab.Ltd.
Case brief
What is this about?
A court disposed of an application regarding the appointment of a new arbitrator, directing the respondent to bear 70% of the costs due to the applicant's prior expenditure on an earlier arbitrator.
What did the court decide?
Respondent to bear cost and fees of new arbitrator at 70:30 ratio.
What the court decided
ca-326.13.doc
ppn 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
COMPANY APPLICATION NO.326 OF 2013 IN
COMPANY PETITION NO.227 OF 2011
Anil P. Gupta, Proprietor of Laxmi Impex .. Applicant In the matter between Anil P. Gupta, Proprietor of Laxmi Impex .. Petitioner Vs. Yuvak Fine Fab Ltd. .. Respondent
Mr. Leena Temkar i/by Kalyani G. Parmar for the applicant. Ms. Sandhya Nanavare i/by M. Janardhanan for the respondent.
CORAM : N.M. JAMDAR, J. DATE : 22 October 2013
P.C. :
. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
- Considering that as result of review application challenging the appointment of the arbitrator which was rejected, the arbitrator chosen has rea.. heresay, that the parties will have to appoint new arbitrator. The learned counsel for the respondent states that retired Sessions Judge Shri P.D. Vishwasrao be appointed as an arbitrator in the matter. The learned counsel for the applicant has no objection.
Parties & counsel
- applicant
Anil P. Gupta
- respondent
Yuvak Fine Fab Ltd.
Coram
N.M. JAMDAR
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
Benifer Danesh Dalal and Danesh Jamshed Dalal Vs .....................................
Maharashtra Rajya Sahakari Mahasangh Maryadit,Mum(Mahanand) Vs M/S Dwarka Marketing and 2
Zenia Irani - Plaintiff NO.1 Vs Varun Pardiwalla - Plaintiff NO.2
The Commissioner of Central Excise, Belapur Commissionerate, Vs the Official Liquidator, High Court of Bombay