Allowed

M/S Pan India Paryatan Pvt.Ltd v. M/S. M.S. Enterprises and Anr.

Bombay HC27 Jan 2015ARBAP/285/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court appointed Mr. Farhan Dubash as a sole arbitrator to resolve disputes between the applicant and M/s. M.S. Enterprises arising from a letter of intent, noting the applicant dropped proceedings against the second respondent.

What did the court decide?

Appointment of Mr. Farhan Dubash as the sole arbitrator to decide disputes arising out of the Letter of Intent dated 26th April, 2012.

M/S Pan India Paryatan Pvt.Ltd Vs M/S. M.S. Enterprises and Anr. — Arbitration | Bombay HC (2015)

Nitin

1058-ARBAP-285-2014

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

¶5

ARBITRATION APPLICATION NO. 285 OF 2014

¶6

PAN India Paryatan Private Limited Versus

¶7

… Applicant

¶8

Mr. Amar Mishra i/b. SRM Law Associates for the Applicant. None for the Respondents.

¶9

CORAM : S.J. KATHAWALLA, J. DATED : 27TH JANUARY, 2015

¶10

P.C.

¶11

The learned Advocate appearing for the Applicant states that he

¶12

is not pressing the above Application against Respondent No. 2 – M/s. Mark Engineering and is pressing the above Application only against Respondent No. 1 - M/s. M.S. Enterprises .

¶13

The Applicant – PAN India Paryatan Private Limited has filed the

¶14

above Arbitration Application against Respondent No. 1 – M/s. M.S. Enterprises under section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the Act) for appointment of a sole Arbitrator to resolve the disputes arisen between the parties under the Letter of Intent (LOI) dated 26^th April, 2012 (Exhibit-A to the Application).

¶15

None appear for Respondent No. 1 though served.

¶16

The Applicant is a Private Limited Company registered under the

¶17

Nitin 2 1058-ARBAP-285-2014

¶18

provisions of Indian Companies Act, 1956 and carrying on the business of tourism since 15 years which is well known as 'Esselworld'. The Respondent No. 1 is a Contractor engaged in the business of civil and fabrication work. By virtue of the Letter of Intent (LOI) for the construction of wall and fabrication of fencing at Esselworld executed by and between Respondent No. 1 and the Applicant vide dated 26^th April, 2012, the Applicant has entrusted a contract amounting to Rs. 1,31,61,139/- to the Respondent No. 1. Clause XVIII of the LOI pertains to Arbitration and the same is reproduced hereunder :

¶19

“XVIII. ARBITRATION :

¶20

Any controversy or claim arising out of relating to this contract of the breach thereof shall at the written request of a party be delivered to the other party not less than thirty (30) calendar days in advance of the date of such submittal and submitted to arbitration in accordance with the provisions of the India Arbitration Act 1996 or any statutory modification thereof. Unless otherwise agreed by the parties, the venue of arbitration shall be MUMBAI.

¶21

The award rendered by the arbitrator (s) shall be binding upon the parties without appeal /Judgment upon such award may be entered in any court having jurisdiction thereof or application may be made to such court for a judicial acceptance of the award and an order of enforcement as the party seeking to enforce such award may elect. Each party

¶22

Nitin 3 1058-ARBAP-285-2014

¶23

shall bear its own expenses of arbitration and any costs payable, shall be shared equally by the parties”.

¶24

Since disputes arose between the parties, the Applicant by its Advocate's letter dated 17^th July, 2013 invoked the arbitration clause. The Respondent No. 1 failed and neglected to reply to the said letter of invocation. The Applicant therefore filed the present Application for the aforestated relief. A copy of the Application has been served on the Respondent No. 1. However, Respondent No. 1 has not come forward to oppose the Application.

¶25

It is therefore clear that the parties have agreed to refer their disputes arising out of the Contract dated 26^th April, 2012 to Arbitration. However, the parties have failed to name any person to be appointed as a sole Arbitrator to resolve their disputes. Hence, the following order :

¶26

i. Mr. Farhan Dubash, Advocate is appointed as a sole Arbitrator to decide the disputes of the Applicant and the Respondent No. 1 arising out of the Letter of Intent dated 26^th April, 2012.

¶27

The above Arbitration Application is accordingly disposed of.

¶28

(S.J. KATHAWALLA, J.)

M/S Pan India Paryatan Pvt.Ltd v. M/S. M.S. Enterprises and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Pan India Paryatan Pvt.Ltd v. M/S. M.S. Enterprises 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

Exemplar Engineering Pvt. Ltd. Vs -

Rash Builders India Pvt.Ltd. Vs Hindustan Construction Company Ltd.

Transport Corporation of India Limited Vs Enviiro Bulkk Handling Systems Private Limited (Cin U29299PN20000PTC014492)

Tata Capital Financial Services Limited Vs Vishal Giddie

M/S Sanklecha Construction Pvt. Ltd. Vs Lafarge Aggregates and Concrete India Private Limited

Alka Chandewar Vs Sovind Nathuji Chandewar