Disposed

Ashwin Keshavlal Pethani v. M/S Landeal Corporation and Anr.

Bombay HC28 Oct 2014ARBP/1107/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single bench arbitration petition seeking injunctions against settlement of a civil suit, retention of documents, and transfer of suit property. Court granted interlocutory injunctions to prevent unauthorized settlements and third-party interests while mandating document inspection.

What did the court decide?

Injunctions granted to prevent unauthorized settlement of Suit No.9746 of 1982, creation of third-party interests, and to mandate inspection of partnership books.

Ashwin Keshavlal Pethani Vs M/S Landeal Corporation and Anr. — Arbitration | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

arbp 1107 of 2013 (942).sxw

¶2

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

¶3

ARBITRATION PETITION NO.1107 OF 2013

¶4

Ashwin Keshavlal Pethani … Petitioner versus M/s. Landeal Corporation and Anr. … Respondents

¶5

Mr. D.D.Madon, Senior Advocate with Mr. Cyrus Ardeshir i/by M/s. Apte and Co., for Petitioner. Ms. Sanaya Dadachanji with Ms. Komal Khushakni i/by M/s. M.K.Ambalal and Co., for Respondents.

¶6

CORAM: S.J. KATHAWALLA, J.

¶7

DATE: 28^th OCTOBER, 2014

¶8

P.C.:

¶9

Heard the learned Advocates for the parties. The above Petition is taken out by the Petitioner under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, for the following reliefs :

¶10

(a) that the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to pass an order and injunction against the Respondents restraining them from in any manner settling the said Suit namely Bombay City Civil Court at Bombay Suit No.9746 of 1982;

¶11

(b) that the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the Respondents to furnish to the Petitioner all books of account of the said partnership and all papers, documents, writing etc., relating to the business of the partnership and in particular the said property situate at Mahakali Road, Andheri

¶12

1/3

¶13

ssp

¶14

arbp 1107 of 2013 (942).sxw

¶15

(E), Mumbai with copies of the said books of accounts of the said partnership and all papers, documents, writing etc., duly certified by the Respondents;

¶16

(c) that the Respondents may be restrained by an order and injunction of this Hon'ble Court from in any manner creating any third party rights and/or interest in the Suit property or any part thereof and/or parting with the possession of the suit property of any part thereof;

¶17

As far as prayer clause (a) is concerned, the learned Advocate for the Respondent No.2 states that the question of restraining them from settling the Suit No.9746 of 1982 filed before the City Civil Court, does not arise since the Plaintiff No.1 therein is the Partnership firm of which both the Petitioner as well as the Respondent No.2 are partners and therefore, it is not possible to settle the Suit in the absence of the Plaintiff. However, since the partners have fallen out, it is obvious that both the partners are not trusting each other. The possibility of one partner entering into a compromise in the absence of the other also cannot be ruled out. In view thereof, both the partners of the Respondent Firm i.e. the Petitioner and Respondent No.2 are hereby restrained by an order of injunction from entering into any compromise in Suit No.9746 of 1982 in the absence of each other.

¶18

As far as prayer clause (b) is concerned, the learned Advocate for

¶19

2/3

¶20

ssp

¶21

arbp 1107 of 2013 (942).sxw

¶22

the Respondent No.2 states that they have already offered inspection to the Advocate for the Petitioner. However, despite the said offer, the Advocates for the Petitioner have not taken inspection of the books of accounts, documents, papers, etc. The learned Advocate for the Petitioner shall attend the Office of the Advocate for the Respondent No.2 on 03-11-2014 at 5.00 p.m., and take inspection as offered and continue the same on day to day basis until the inspection is complete.

¶23

As far as prayer clause (c) is concerned, again the learned Advocate for the Respondent No.2 states that there is no question of Respondent No.2 creating any third party rights and/or interest in the Suit property or part with possession of the Suit property or any part thereof and therefore, no injunction is required. In view of the total distrust between the parties, the Petitioner as well as the Respondent No.2 are restrained by an order and injunction from creating any third party rights and/or interest in the Suit property or any part thereof and/or parting with possession of the suit property or any part thereof;

¶24

The above Arbitration Petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶25

( S.J.KATHAWALLA, J. )

¶26

3/3

¶27

ssp

Ashwin Keshavlal Pethani v. M/S Landeal Corporation and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashwin Keshavlal Pethani v. M/S Landeal Corporation 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

Tekton Construction Vs Kss Petron Private Limited (Cin U45400MH2007PTC234297)

Cytech Coatings Pvt.Ltd. Vs Sharp Industries Ltd.

Rajasthan Cylinders and Containers Limited Vs Ankur Drugs and Pharma Limited - L24230MH1995LCO85410

Ares Investments Vs Wilson Sandhu Logistics (India) Ltd. and 6 Ors.

M/S. Tata Capital Financial Services Ltd. Vs M/S. Ratnagiri Chemicals Pvt.Ltd and Anr.

M/S Aum Saw Pipe and Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Anarcon Resources Limited and 6 Ors.