Allowed

M/S.Mpd Associates Pvt. Ltd. v. M/S.Angel Broking Ltd. and Anr.

Bombay HC20 Nov 2014APP/395/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Bombay High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the dismissal of a previous notice of motion. The court directed the appellant to deposit Rs.6 lakhs with the court to condone a 94-day delay, restore the arbitration petition, and remove office objections within four weeks, with the deposit adjustable against the arbitral award.

What did the court decide?

Notice of Motion No.276 of 2014 allowed; delay of 94 days condoned; order rejecting Arbitration Petition (L) No.69 of 2009 set aside; deposit of Rs.6 lakhs directed.

M/S.Mpd Associates Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S.Angel Broking Ltd. and Anr. — Arbitration | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

1 of 3 APP.395.2014

¶2

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

¶3

APPEAL NO.395 OF 2014 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO.276 OF 2014 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO.968 OF 2012 IN ARBITRATION PETITION (L) NO.69 OF 2009

¶4

M/s.MPD Associates Private Limited Appellant versus M/s.Angel Broking Limited and another Respondents

¶5

Mr.Pranav Desai and Mr.Deepakar i/by Khare Legal Chambers for Appellants.

¶6

Mr.Deepak Dhange i/by Joby Mathew & Associates for Respondent no.1.

¶7

CORAM : MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. AND B.P.COLABAWALLA, J.

¶8

DATE : 20 November 2014

¶9

PC :

¶10

The appeal is directed against the order dated 11 April 2014 passed in Notice of Motion No.276 of 2014 of a learned Single Judge of this Court dismissing the Appellant's Notice of Motion No.276 of 2014 for setting aside the order dated 21 December 2013 dismissing Appellant's Notice of Motion No.968 of 2012 for default. Notice of Motion No.968 of 2012 was filed for condonation of delay of 94 days in filing the said Notice of Motion and for setting aside the order of rejection of the Arbitration Petition (L) No.69 of 2009 dated

¶11

2 of 3 APP.395.2014

¶12

25 November 2011 under Rule 986 of the Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules for non removal of office objections.

¶13

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having regard to the cause for the delay and for non removal of office objections, we are of the view that interests of justice would be served if this appeal is disposed of in terms of the following directions :

¶14

(A) On deposit of a sum of Rs.6.00 lakh (Rs.Six lakhs only) with the Prothonotary and Senior Master of this Court on or before 18 December 2014 :

¶15

(i) Notice of Motion No.276 of 2014 will stand allowed;

¶16

(ii) Notice of Motion No.968 of 2012 will stand allowed and delay of 94 days in filing said Notice of Motion will stand condoned;

¶17

(iii) Order dated 25 November 2011 rejecting Arbitration Petition (L) No.69 of 2009 for non removal of office objections shall stand set aside.

¶18

In other words, upon deposit of the amount of Rs.6 lakhs with the Prothonotary and Senior Master of this Court on or before 18 December 2014, Arbitration Petition (L) No.69 of 2009 shall stand restored and the Appellant shall remove the office objections within four weeks from the date of restoration of the arbitration petition.

¶19

3 of 3 APP.395.2014

¶20

It is clarified that the amount of Rs.6 lakhs to be deposited will be adjusted against the amount payable by the Appellant under the arbitral award. But, in case, the arbitration petition is allowed in its entirety, a sum of Rs.30,000/- shall be treated as costs of this appeal as well as the Notices of Motion.

¶21

In case of default in depositing the aforesaid amount of Rs.6 lakhs on or before 18 December 2014, this appeal shall stand dismissed.

¶22

The appeal stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs.

¶23

(CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶24

MST

M/S.Mpd Associates Pvt. Ltd. v. M/S.Angel Broking Ltd. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.Mpd Associates Pvt. Ltd. v. M/S.Angel Broking Ltd. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s. Om Shanti Realtors Vs State of Maharashtra and 6 Ors.

Netra Ajit Vijayakar and Anr. Vs Shankar Gajanan Velkar

Rogers Francis Nunes Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Urban Development Dept and Ors.

The State of Maharashtra , Minister of Town Planning Authority and Ors. Vs Shri. Manish Waman Khavale and Ors.

Manish Waman Khavale Vs the Tree Authority - Khopoli Municipal Council and Ors.

Manish Waman Khavale Vs Tree Authority and Ors.