Disposed

Vishal B. Manani v. Oshwal Sikshan and Rahat Sangh and 10 Others

Bombay HC10 Dec 2014ARBP/374/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

By consent order, the High Court referred disputes arising from three 2012 agreements to two arbitrators who must appoint a third. The court set a six-month time limit for the award, allowed counterclaims, and outlined relief available if the Respondent Trust seeks sanction for property alienation under the Bombay Public Trust Act.

What did the court decide?

Dispute referred to sole and third party arbitration; six-month time limit set for award; counter-claims permitted.

Vishal B. Manani Vs Oshwal Sikshan and Rahat Sangh and 10 Others — Arbitration | Bombay HC (2014)

Nitin

926-ARBP-374-2014

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

¶5

ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 374 OF 2014

Mr. Vishal B. Manani

… Petitioner

Versus

Oshwal Sikshan & Rahat Sangh & Ors.

¶10

… Respondents

¶11

ALONG WITH

¶12

ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 373 OF 2014

¶13

Ms. Manish D. Nakrani … Petitioner

¶14

Versus

¶15

Oshwal Sikshan & Rahat Sangh & Ors. … Respondents

¶16

ALONG WITH

¶17

ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 375 OF 2014

¶18

Ms. Jayanti D. Solani … Petitioner

¶19

Versus

¶20

Oshwal Sikshan & Rahat Sangh & Ors. … Respondents

¶21

ALONG WITH

¶22

ARBITRATION APPLICATION (L) NO. 1838 OF 2014

¶23

Mr. Manish D. Narkarni … Applicant

¶24

Versus

¶25

Oshwal Sikshan & Rahat Sangh & Ors. … Respondents

¶26

ALONG WITH

¶27

ARBITRATION APPLICATION (L) NO. 1839 OF 2014

Mr. Vishal B. Manani

… Petitioner

Versus

Oshwal Sikshan & Rahat Sangh & Ors. … Respondents

¶32

ALONG WITH

¶33

ARBITRATION APPLICATION (L) NO. 1843 OF 2014

¶34

Ms. Jayanti D. Solani … Petitioner

¶35

Nitin 2	926-ARBP-374-2014
Versus
Oshwal Sikshan & Rahat Sangh & Ors.	… Respondents

¶36

Mr. J.S. Kini i/b. Suresh Dubey for the Petitioners / Applicants in above Petitions / Applications.

¶37

Mr. V. Srivastava a/w. Ms. N. Jain and Ms. Sinal i/b. Maniar Srivastava Associates & Company for Respondents,

¶38

CORAM : S.J. KATHAWALLA, J. DATE : 10TH DECEMBER, 2014

¶39

P.C.:

¶40

Heard the learned Advocates appearing for the parties and the following order is passed by consent :

¶41

i. The disputes and differences between the parties arising out of the three agreements, all dated 23^rd April, 2012 are referred to the sole Arbitration of Mr. Subash Karmarkar, Structural Engineer (nominee of the Petitioners) and Mr. V.J. Joshi, Civil Engineer (nominee of the Respondents ).

¶42

ii. The two learned Arbitrators shall appoint a third Arbitrator.

¶43

iii. The Respondents shall also be at liberty to file their Counter Claim if any before the learned Arbitrators.

¶44

iv. The learned Arbitrators shall endeavour to pass their Award within a period of six months from the date of the first meeting held by them with the parties and their Advocates.

¶45

v. In the event of the Respondent-Trust filing any Application before

¶46

Nitin

¶47

3 926-ARBP-374-2014

¶48

the Charity Commissioner seeking sanction for alienation of the property under section 36 of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950, the Respondent-Trust shall forthwith give notice of the same to the Advocate for the Petitioners as well as the Petitioners and the Petitioners shall be at liberty to take out proceedings seeking appropriate reliefs including reliefs under section 9 and / or 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

¶49

vi. The cost of arbitration shall initially be borne by the parties equally.

¶50

vii. All contentions of the parties are kept open.

¶51

viii. The venue of Arbitration shall be at Mumbai.

¶52

The above Petitions are accordingly disposed of.

¶53

In view of this order, Arbitration Application (L) Nos. 1838 of

¶54

2014, 1839 of 2014 and 1843 of 2014 are also disposed of.

¶55

( S.J.KATHAWALLA, J. )

Vishal B. Manani v. Oshwal Sikshan and Rahat Sangh and 10 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vishal B. Manani v. Oshwal Sikshan and Rahat Sangh and 10 Others

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

Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Limited Vs Chetan Niranjan Dave and Anr.

Heritage Enterprises Vs Apsara Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd.

The Greater Bombay Co-Operative Bank Ltd. Vs M/S. Manthan Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd. (Cin U45200MH2005PTC153620)

L and T Finance Limited, Vs Mr.Bandu Ambadas Lendave(Borrower) and 2 Ors.

Jayanti Damji Solani Vs Oshwal Sikshan and Rahat Sangh and 10 Others

Manisha D. Nakrani Vs Oshwal Sikshan and Rahat Sangh and 10 Ors.