Allowed

Kataria Industries Private Limited v. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and Anr.

Bombay HC8 Jul 2014APP/436/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of an appeal filed to challenge a referral order. The Court issued directions for the respondent to appoint an arbitrator within three weeks, dictated a timeline for the award, and ordered that bank guarantees be treated as deposits pending the award's outcome. The appeal stands allowed with costs.

What did the court decide?

Respondent to appoint arbitrator within 3 weeks; award within 4 months; bank guarantees treated as deposits pending award; refund with interest if appellant succeeds; ad-interim stay vacated.

Kataria Industries Private Limited Vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam… — Arbitration | Bombay HC (2014)

dssherla

903-appl 377-14

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶5

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶6

APPEAL (LODGING) NO.377 OF 2014 IN ARBITRATION PETITION (L) NO.682 OF 2014 WITH

¶7

NOTICE OF MOTION (L) NO.1449 OF 2014

¶8

Kataria Industries Pvt. Ltd.

¶9

.. Appellant

¶10

vs.

¶11

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited & Anr. .. Respondents.

¶12

Ms. Shilpa Kapil for the Appellant.

¶13

Ms Martina Sakpal i/b M/s. Arun Sakpal & Co for Respondent No.1.

¶14

CORAM: MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. & M.S.SONAK, J. DATE : 8 JULY 2014

¶15

P.C.:

¶16

Learned counsel for respondent No.1 - BSNL states that before receiving the notice of this proceeding, respondent No.1 had already received demand drafts from respondent No.2 bank for the two bank guarantees in question and therefore, the appeal has become infructuous.

¶17

2] On the other hand, learned counsel for the appellant submits that Arbitration Petition (L) No.682 of 2014 was filed under section 9 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act 1996 and as the arbitration proceedings are contemplated, respondent No.1 itself has to appoint an Arbitrator.

1 of 3

dssherla

903-appl 377-14

3] Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the interests of justice would be served if the appeal is disposed of in terms of the following directions.

¶23

(a) The appellant will write to respondent No.1 for appointment of an Arbitrator for resolving the disputes which are subject matter of Arbitration Petition (L) No.682 of 2014 within one week from today;

¶24

(b) Within three weeks from the date of receipt of such request, respondent No.1 to appoint an Arbitrator;

¶25

¶26

(d) Till the Arbitrator submits an award and for a period of four weeks thereafter, in case the award is against the appellant, respondent No.1 will treat the amounts of bank guarantees as deposit which lying with respondent No.1 and shall not treat the same as forfeiture of the earnest money deposit under the contract in question;

¶27

(e) In case the appellant succeeds before the Arbitrator, either fully or partly, the amounts will be refunded by respondent No.1 to the appellant with the interest, at such rate, as may be determined by the Arbitrator;

¶28

(f) In view of above, respondent No.1 will be at

2 of 3

dssherla 3

903-appl 377-14

liberty to encash the demand drafts received from respondent No.2 bank by way of encashment of the bank guarantees, but will treat the same as deposit in terms of above.

¶33

3] The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.

¶34

4] In view of disposal of appeal, Notice of Motion (L) No.1449 of 2014 does not survive and is accordingly disposed of.

¶35

5] Ad-interim stay granted earlier stands vacated.

¶36

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶37

(M.S.SONAK, J.)

¶38

3 of 3

Kataria Industries Private Limited v. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kataria Industries Private Limited v. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and Anr.

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

Oriental Bank of Commerce Vs Unique Integrated Transport and Management Consultancies Pvt. Ltd. and 2 Ors.

Satvik Rajiv Samani and Another Vs Smt. Shardaben Prabhudas Samani and Another

Rajeetram B. Upadhyay Vs M/S. R. K. Films and Studions Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.

Jaipal Namdeo Mallapur and Anr. Vs M/S Ranjani Sunderrao Mallapur and Anr.

India Centre for Human Right and Law and 3 Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and 2 Ors.

India Centre for Human Right and Law and 3 Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and 2 Ors.