Allowed

Sheth Developers Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. Golden Tobacco Ltd.

Bombay HC26 Mar 2013CHS/238/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an arbitration petition under Section 9, the petitioner sought leave to amend the petition to add facts about the respondent's accounting practices and request a Court Receiver. The court allowed the amendment upon payment of costs, fixing timelines for service and reply, and adjourned the main petition.

What did the court decide?

Leave to amend the petition incorporated into new facts granted. Amended copy to be served by 4th April 2013; reply affidavit to be filed by 17th April 2013. Petition adjourned to 25th April 2013.

Sheth Developers Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. Vs Golden Tobacco Ltd. — Arbitration | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

.. 1 .. CHS-238/13

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY .

¶3

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.238 OF 2013 IN

¶5

ARBITRATION PETITION NO.667 OF 2012

¶6

SHETH DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. AND ANR.

¶7

... Petitioner.

¶8

V/s.

¶9

GOLDEN TOBACCO LTD. ... Respondents.

¶10

Mr Rohan Cama a/w Sanjay Udeshi, D. Ashar and Pankaj Pandit i/b M/s Sanjay Udeshi & Co. for Applicant.

¶11

Mr D.D.Madan, Senior Advocate a/w Mr B. Colabawalla a/w Rohit Gupta, Amit Jajoo & Ms Sishmita Gandhi i/b PKA Advocates for respondent.

¶12

CORAM : R.D.DHANUKA J. DATED : MARCH 26, 2013.

¶13

P.C.

¶14

By this chamber summons, petitioner seeks leave to amend the petition filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996.

¶15

It is the case of the petitioner that after filing of this petition, petitioner learnt recently that the standard accounting policy adopted by the respondent for recognition of values of property when converted from fixed asset

¶16

to stock in trade, has not been followed in the same manner on transfer of the

1/3

Asmita

.. 2 .. CHS-238/13

said property with the malafide motive. It is the apprehension of the petitioner that by showing net worth in negative, the respondent may again seek relief under Section 22 of the SICA by filing fresh application under Section 15. It is submitted that in view of the subsequent facts having come to the notice of the petitioner after filing of this petition, petitioner may be permitted to amend this petition so as to incorporate new facts on record and to seek appointment of Court Receiver based on such additional facts.

¶21

The respondent has filed affidavit in reply to oppose this chamber summons. The submission made by the respondent in reply is that the petitioner was fully aware of these facts when arbitration petition was filed by the petitioner and thus, no such amendment shall be permitted.

¶22

The learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the chamber summons is also opposed on the ground that the amendments sought by the petitioner are irrelevant for the purpose of deciding the petition under Section 9 and shall not be allowed by this Court. Considering the nature of amendment sought by the petitioner and in view of the fact that petition under Section 9 is pending for disposal, no prejudice would be caused to the respondents if amendment as sought by the petitioner are allowed to be made. 5. Respondent would be at liberty to file affidavit in reply to the amended petition. Chamber summons is accordingly made absolute in terms of

2/3

Asmita

.. 3 .. CHS-238/13

prayer clause (a). Amendment be carried out on or before 4^th April 2013. Petitioner to serve amended copy of the petition upon the respondent simultaneously. Affidavit in reply, if any, to the amended petition shall be filed on or before 17^th April 2013 with advance copy thereof to be served on petitioner's Advocate.

¶27

Mr Colabawalla, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent, on instructions, states that without obtaining any further orders from the BIFR, his clients would not take any steps to develop the land in question. Mr Colabawalla further submits that as on today, no development activity is being carried on by the respondent on the said plot in question. Statement is accepted.

¶28

It is made clear that petitioner does not accept the jurisdiction of BIFR to entertain and/or grant any further relief in favour of the respondent. It is further made clear that the statement made by the respondent is without prejudice to the rights and contention of the respondents.

¶29

Petition is adjourned to 25^th April 2013 .

¶30

( R.D.DHANUKA, J.)

¶31

3/3

¶32

Asmita

Sheth Developers Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. Golden Tobacco Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sheth Developers Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. Golden Tobacco 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

Mr Vijay Karbhari Rohmare Vs Mr Ashok Karbhari Rohmare...

Viacom 18 Private Limited Vs Snajay Gadhvi

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

Iss Integrated Facility Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs Ramkrishna Care Medical Sciences Pvt. Ltd.

Skoll Construction Pvt. Ltd. Vs Chittaranjan Housing Co. Pvt. Ltd.

Carzonrent (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs Sonal Wirehealds Mfg Works