Dismissed

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

Bombay HC26 Mar 2013NMS/2556/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court rejected a petitioner's application seeking to recall an order appointing a judicial advocate as sole arbitrator pursuant to Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, despite respondent's absence and an argument invoking Section 15 of the Act.

What did the court decide?

Notice of Motion rejected as the order appointing Mr. Gaurav Joshi as sole arbitrator is not recalled.

Skoll Construction Pvt. Ltd. Vs Chittaranjan Housing Co. Pvt. Ltd. — Arbitration | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

.. 1 .. NMS-2556/12

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY .

¶3

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2556 OF 2012

¶5

¶6

ARBITRATION APPLICATION NO.201 OF 2012

¶7

CHITTRANJAN HOUSING COMPANY

¶8

PVT. LTD.

¶9

Applicant (Ori. Respondent)

¶10

In the matter between :

¶11

SKOLL CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.

¶12

... Petitioner.

¶13

V/s.

¶14

CHITTRANJAN HOUSING COMPANY

¶15

PVT. LTD.

¶16

... Respondent.

¶17

Ms B. Gandhi i/b Yusuf & Associates for Applicant.

¶18

Mr Devrath Dhankar for respondent.

¶19

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

¶20

P.C.

¶21

By this notice of motion, the respondent seeks to recall of the order

¶22

dated 19^th October 2012 passed by Dr D. Y. Chandrachud, J., disposing of Arbitration Application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

1/3

Asmita

.. 2 .. NMS-2556/12

By an order dated 17^th February 2011, Mr Justice S.C. Pratap was appointed as sole arbitrator. However by communication dated 3^rd April 2012, the learned sole arbitrator expressed his desire to relinquish his appointment of arbitrator on account of his ill-health. The applicant therefore filed Arbitration Application No.201 of 2012 for appointment of arbitrator. When the matter was called out on 19^th October 2012, none appeared for the respondent. By the said order, the designate of the Hon'ble Chief Justice has appointed Mr Gaurav Joshi, Advocate to act as sole arbitrator. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent (applicant to this notice of motion) submits that when the matter was called out, the Advocate who was deputed by M/s Yusuf & Associates and who was attending the matter on behalf of the respondent (applicant to this notice of motion) was held up in another Court and by the time she rushed to the Court, this court had already passed an order and the matter was not kept back though the respondent was absent.

¶27

The learned counsel submits that in view of the vacancy having been arisen in view of letter dated 3^rd April 2012 issued by the then arbitrator, applicant ought to have followed procedure under Section 15 of the Act before filing application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act for seeking appointment of arbitrator.

2/3

Asmita

.. 3 .. NMS-2556/12

In the alternative, the learned counsel submits that in view of the stake involved in the matter and the nature of the dispute, retired Judge of this Court shall be appointed as an arbitrator.

¶32

It is not in dispute that arbitration agreement exists between the parties. The then arbitrator who was appointed by this Court by order dated 17^th February 2011 resigned in view of his ill-health. Though the order passed by this Court on 19^th October 2012 is passed in absence of the respondent, perusal of the said order shows that in place of the then arbitrator who had resigned in view of his ill-health, the designate of the Hon'ble Chief Justice has appointed Mr Gaurav Joshi, Advocate to act as sole arbitrator.

¶33

In my view, no interference is warranted for recalling the order passed by this Court on 19th October 2012. Notice of Motion is therefore rejected. No order as to costs.

¶34

( R.D.DHANUKA, J.)

¶35

3/3

¶36

Asmita

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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

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