Allowed

Shakeel Noorani v. Sanjay Dutt and Dilanshin S. Dutt

Bombay HC7 Apr 2014CHS/48/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In proceedings seeking to raise an attachment levied on property owned by the applicant, the Court held that the underlying IMPPA decision was not an arbitral award under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. Consequently, the execution proceedings were non est, and the chamber summons was allowed.

What did the court decide?

The chamber summons has been made absolute; the attachment has been raised. The claimant is directed to pay costs of Rs. 1,50,000/- to the applicant.

Shakeel Noorani Vs Sanjay Dutt and Dilanshin S. Dutt — Arbitration | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

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

¶2

CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.48 of 2011 IN EXECUTION APPLICATION NO. 972 OF 2010 IN AWARD DATED 28 – 01 – 2010

¶3

Shakeel Noorani Vs.

¶4

… Claimant

¶5

Sanjay Dutt … Respondent And Mrs. Dilanshin Sanjay Dutt ...Applicant

¶6

… Respondent

¶7

Mr. S. D. Patil a/w Mr.S. R. Saudagar, for the Claimant.

¶8

Mr. Vijay Thorat, senior advocate a/w Mr. Vaibhav Sugdare, Ms. Manorama Mohanty, Mr. Gunjan Shah i/b S. K. Srivastav and Co, for the Respondent and the Applicant.

¶9

Coram: B. P. COLABAWALLA J.

¶10

Reserved on : 2^nd April, 2014. Pronounced on : 7^th April, 2014.

¶11

P.C.:-

¶12

This chamber summons has been filed by the applicant for

¶13

raising the attachment levied on flat Nos. 101 and 102, 1^st floor,

¶14

Mayfair Melody, situated at Mouje: Danda, Taluka: Andheri,

¶15

Aswale 1 // 3 CHS 48 of 2011.sxw

¶16

Dist. Mumbai beaing City Survey No..G/87A, H Ward, Mumbai 400 054, of which she claims to be the sole owner.

¶17

The two principle grounds on which the attachment is sought to be raised is that (i) the decision of IMPPA dated 28^th January 2010 is not an arbitral award, and therefore, not executable as a decree of the Court under Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 read with the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; and (ii) in any event of the matter, the applicant is the sole owner of the said flats by two separate registered sale deeds dated 16^th July 2009, consideration for which has been paid by the applicant out of her own income, and she not being in any way connected with the decision of IMPPA, no attachment could be levied on her flats.

¶18

It is an admitted fact that the decision of IMPPA is only against the respondent. In the connected chamber summons No.40 of 2011 filed by the respondent, I have already held that the decision of IMPPA that is sought to be executed in these proceedings, is not an arbitral award as contemplated under

¶19

Aswale 2 // 3 CHS 48 of 2011.sxw

¶20

the Act, and therefore, these execution proceedings are nonest and an abuse of the process of the Court. On the same reasoning, this chamber summons will also have to be allowed.

¶21

In view of my judgment in the connected chamber summons No.40 of 2011, it is not necessary to decide the second question raised in this chamber summons regarding the applicant's title to the said flats, or in view thereof, whether the attachment levied was unjustified. The chamber summons is accordingly made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). In the facts and circumstances of the case, the claimant shall pay costs of Rs.1,50,000/- to the applicant.

¶22

(B. P. COLABAWALLA J.)

¶23

Aswale 3 // 3 CHS 48 of 2011.sxw

Shakeel Noorani v. Sanjay Dutt and Dilanshin S. Dutt

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shakeel Noorani v. Sanjay Dutt and Dilanshin S. Dutt

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

The Punjab and Maharashtra Co-Op Bank Ltd. Vs M/S New Age Computers and 2 Ors.

M/S. Reliance Capital Ltd. Vs Rohan R.Sharma and Ravindernath T.Sharma and Anr.

Shakeel Noorani Vs Sanjay Dutt.

Mr. Pravin Murari Uttarkar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Mr. Pravin Murari Uttarkar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.