Dismissed

M/S Shaikh Construction v. Hamoobai Haji Ali Mohd. H. Cassum Agbotwala and State Bank of India

Bombay HC22 Jan 2013CHS/142/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court rejected a chamber summons application seeking to join the applicant as a party in arbitration proceedings. The judgment held that since the underlying suit against the applicant had already been disposed of, no warrant existed to join it as a respondent in the arbitration.

What did the court decide?

Chamber Summons rejected; applicant not to be joined as a party respondent in the arbitration proceedings.

M/S Shaikh Construction Vs Hamoobai Haji Ali… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

ChS142-12 in ARBP399-08

¶3

Sequeira

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶5

CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 142 OF 2012 IN ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 399 OF 2008

¶6

M/s Shaikh Construction .. Petitioner Vs

¶7

Hamoobai daughter of Haji Ali Mohammed Hajee Cassum Agboatwala & w/o Abdul Majid Patka & ors. .. Respondents And State Bank of India Staff Vaibhav Co-op Housing Society Limited .. Applicant Intervenors.

¶8

Mr.Joel Carlos, for petitioner.

¶9

Mr.Shyam Mehta Senior advocate a/w Mr.Cyrus Bharucha a/w Mr.Anupam Surve a/w Ms.Sanju Udayabhanu i/b M/s Nanu Hormasjee & Co., for respondent. Mr.Dushyant Purekar, for applicant.

¶10

CORAM: N.M.JAMDAR, J. Tuesday 22 January, 2013

¶11

P.C.:

¶12

By this Chamber Summons the applicant prays that it may be joined as party to the present arbitration proceedings.

¶13

On the face of it such application in the petition under section 34 in the arbitration proceedings will not be maintainable as the applicant was never party in the arbitration proceedings before the arbitrator. The learned

¶14

¶15

ChS142-12 in ARBP399-08

¶16

counsel for the applicant points out that there are certain peculiar facts in the present matter which requires him to file such an application.

¶17

He has drawn my attention to the order passed by this Court on 6 May 1999 in Suit No.1965 of 1999 wherein the dispute between the plaintiff and defendant therein was referred to arbitration and certain suits and proceedings which were mentioned in clause 6 of the consent terms were stayed till the award was passed. One such suit was a suit filed against the applicant by the respondent in which a statement was made by the applicant in respect of the property involved in the suit. It was the grievance of the applicant that the arbitration proceedings were needlessly prolonged by the parties because of which suit to which applicant was party and the statement made by the applicant continued. Therefore, the applicant filed a Notice of Motion No.2712 of 2000 in Suit No.1965 of 1999 wherein this Court by order dated 1 August 2002 took note of the grievance of the applicant and directed that if the award is not passed within nine months the order staying the suit will stand recalled.

¶18

It appears thereafter the award was set aside by consent twice, and arbitration proceedings were finally concluded on 28 April 2008. The learned counsel for the applicant states that since there was no stay operating, the suit filed against the applicant proceeded and was finally dismissed on 16 April 2012. The learned counsel states that First Appeal No.948 of 2012 filed against the order of dismissing the suit is pending.

¶19

The learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent both oppose the Chamber Summons. They state that the applicant had moved this Court earlier not to join himself as a party respondent in the arbitration

¶20

¶21

ChS142-12 in ARBP399-08

¶22

but to ensure that the suit filed against it in which it had made a statement is not unduly prolonged.

¶23

This being the only anxiety of the applicant, it does not survive any more as the suit itself has been disposed of. In any case there is no order which is brought to my notice which shows that the decision given in these arbitration proceedings will affect the merits of the suit filed against the applicant. This being the position there is no warrant for the applicant to join himself as a party respondent, in law as well as on facts. The Chamber Summons is accordingly rejected.

¶24

The First Appeal No.948 of 2012 filed against the applicant will proceed independently on its own merits de hors this arbitration petition.

¶25

N.M.JAMDAR, J.

M/S Shaikh Construction v. Hamoobai Haji Ali Mohd. H. Cassum Agbotwala and State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Shaikh Construction v. Hamoobai Haji Ali Mohd. H. Cassum Agbotwala and State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Case details

Similar cases

Ashok M. Bajaj Vs Twilight Litaka Pharma Ltd. -L24231MH1974PTC017139

Prakash Vanijya Private Limited Vs Shree Ltc Agro Sales Private Limited

Rajay Investments Private Limited. Vs -------------------------------------

M/S. Kolkata Radiant Properties Private Limited Vs Petron Engineering Construction Limited - L45202MH1976PLC019135

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited Vs M/S. Bombay Gypsum Private Limited - U25206MH1996PTC098315

Shingar Cosmetics Private Limited Vs ------------