Allowed

Hasnain Mansoorali Sultanali v. Ali Akbar Adamjee Peerbhoy

Bombay HC12 Aug 2014ARBP/1024/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an arbitration petition concerning an agreement with an arbitration clause, the court held that allegations of fraud do not preclude reference to arbitration unless the contract is void by a meaningful reading without further proof. The ad-interim injunction granted was not extended by appointing a receiver.

What did the court decide?

Confirmed ad-interim injunction restraining respondent from creating third party rights and disturbing petitioner's possession; declined appointment of court receiver.

Hasnain Mansoorali Sultanali Vs Ali Akbar Adamjee Peerbhoy — Arbitration | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

2-ARBP-10242014.DOC

¶2

ars

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 1024 OF 2014

¶4

Hasnain Mansoorali Sultanali…Petitioner
Versus
Ali Akbar Adamjee Peerbhoy…Respondent

¶5

Mr.A.M.Saraogi, a/w Anand Mishra, for the Petitioner.
Mr.Ali Akbar Peerbhoy, Respondent in person.

¶6

CORAM:G.S. PATEL, J
DATED:12th August 2014

¶7

PC:-

¶8

1.Heard. The Respondent appears in person. On 6th August
2014, I granted an ad-interim injunction in terms of prayer clause
(a), which reads as follows:

¶9

(a) that pending the haring and final disposal of the Arbitration proceedings, Respondent be restrained from creating any third party rights in respect of the property situated at Matheran (was granted by Governor in Council Government Resolution No.7529 dated 22nd August 1910 total area was allotted 50 Acres of land at

¶10

1 of 3

¶11

2-ARBP-10242014.DOC

¶12

Matheran) including the property bearing No. MP-161 to MP-217 except plot no. 206, 197, 187, 189, 192, 201, 167 admeasuring about 24 acres and 13 gunthas and be further restrained from disturbing the possession of the Petitioner in any manner whatsoever.

¶13

2.Since then, the Respondent, who still appears in person, has
filed an affidavit in reply dated 8th August 2014. In this, he alleges
that the Memorandum of Understanding in question was obtained
by fraud. He also states that he has other competing and better
offers for the immovable properties in question, ones that are
situated at Matheran.

¶14

3.There is no doubt that the Memorandum of Understanding
contains an arbitration clause. This is clause 18 of the
Memorandum of Understanding, Exhibit A to the petition.

¶15

4.In view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Swiss Timing
Limited vs. Organising Committee, Commonwealth Games 2010, Delhi.,1 it
is clear that even in a situation where there allegations of fraud
made, the parties must be held to their bargain and must be referred
to arbitration. All matters including the issue as to whether the
main contract was void/voidable can and must be referred to
arbitration. This case does not fall within any of the exceptions
narrowly defined by Nijjar, J. in Swiss Timing for a refusal to refer
the matter to arbitration. A Court can decline a reference to
arbitration only where it reaches a conclusion that the contract is

¶16

1 (2014) 6 SCC 677

¶17

2 of 3

¶18

2-ARBP-10242014.DOC

¶19

void on a meaningful reading of the contract document itself
without the requirement of any further proof. That is not the case
here.

¶20

5.In view there of, there will be a final order in terms of prayer
clause (a) of this Petition. The prayer for appointment of a Court
Receiver, though pressed by Mr. Saraogi learned advocate for the
Petitioner, is not, in my view, necessary. The injunction is
sufficient.

¶21

6.The Petition is disposed of in these terms with no order as to
costs.

¶22

(G. S. PATEL, J.)

¶23

3 of 3

Hasnain Mansoorali Sultanali v. Ali Akbar Adamjee Peerbhoy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hasnain Mansoorali Sultanali v. Ali Akbar Adamjee Peerbhoy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suchitra Fabtex Pvt.Ltd. Vs S.K. C. Retail Limited

Kumar Aditya Vs S.R.V. Production

Lalitkumar S. Nagpal Vs Anil S. Nagpal and 4 Ors.

Javerchand Hirji Shah Vs Manilal Mulchand Shah 9 Ors.

Khursheed Anwar Mohammad Ali Vs Syncom Formulation (I)Ltd.

Usv Limited Vs Axiz Bank Limited and Anr.