Allowed

Sharekhan Ltd. v. Parul Shah and Anr.

Bombay HC26 Feb 2015NMA/182/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the respondent to withdraw amounts invested in a fixed deposit by furnishing security to the Prothonotary, clarifying that bank guarantees were not mandatory and the master must hear the applicant before acceptance.

What did the court decide?

Awarded permission to withdraw fixed deposit amounts upon furnishing security to the Prothonotary, subject to the respondent's undertaking to refund if the appeal succeeded.

Sharekhan Ltd. Vs Parul Shah and Anr. — Arbitration | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

1 of 3 NMA.182.2015

¶2

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

¶3

NOTICE OF MOTION NO.182 OF 2015 IN

¶4

APPEAL NO.157 OF 2015

¶5

Sharekhan Limited Applicant versus Parul Shah and another Respondents

¶6

Mr.Rohan Cama with Mr.Deepak Sharma for Applicant. Mr.Zal Andhyarujina with Ms.Prachi Pandya i/by Corporate Attorneys for Respondent.

¶7

CORAM : MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. AND B.P.COLABAWALLA, J.

¶8

DATE : 26 February 2015

¶9

PC :

¶10

The respondents herein (original claimants) succeeded before the arbitral tribunal and when the Applicant herein challenged the arbitral award in a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, the said petitions came to be dismissed by the learned Single Judge. The appeal is admitted and the National Stock Exchange was directed to invest the amounts, which it held pursuant to the award of arbitral tribunal with interest, in a long term fixed deposit with any nationalized bank and the respondent herein (original claimant) was permitted to withdraw the periodical interest to

¶11

2 of 3 NMA.182.2015

¶12

be accrued on such long term deposit, subject to the condition that the respondent shall file an undertaking in this Court to return the amount of interest to the Applicant/Appellant in case the appeal is allowed and respondent is directed to return the amount of interest.

¶13

In the present Notice of Motion, the respondent (original claimant) has contended that since he has succeeded before the arbitral tribunal, in the appeal before the appellate panel of arbitrators under the Rules of National Stock Exchange of India Limited and also before the learned Single Judge in Section 34 petition, she may be permitted to withdraw the amounts on furnishing security to the satisfaction of Prothonotary & Senior Master of this court.

¶14

Learned counsel for Applicant/Appellant opposes the prayer. However, having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the respondent in the appeal is required to be permitted to withdraw the amounts lying invested in fixed deposit by National Stock Exchange of India Limited on furnishing security to the satisfaction of Prothonotary & Senior Master of this Court.

¶15

In view of the above, the Notice of Motion No.182 of 2015 is allowed and the respondent (original claimant) is allowed to withdraw the amounts lying in the fixed deposit with

¶16

NMA.182.2015

¶17

the nationalized bank upon furnishing security to the satisfaction of Prothonotary & Senior Master of this Court and also on furnishing an undertaking to this Court that in case the Applicant/Appellant succeeds in the appeal and the respondent being required to refund such amounts, the respondent will refund such amounts within such time and with such rate of interest as may be directed by this Court.

¶18

It is clarified that such security need not be in the form of a bank guarantee/s. It is further clarified that before accepting the security, the Prothonotary & Senior Master shall also give an opportunity of hearing to the Applicant/Appellant. Once the Prothonotary & Senior Master accepts the security, he will give necessary intimation to the National Stock Exchange of India Limited. Notice of Motion stands disposed of.

¶19

(CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶20

(B.P.COLABAWALLA, J.)

¶21

MST

Sharekhan Ltd. v. Parul Shah and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sharekhan Ltd. v. Parul Shah 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

Angel Construction Company Vs the State of Maharashtra and 3 Ors.

National Peroxide Ltd. and Anr. Vs Kalyan Dombivli Municipal Corpn. and Anr.

Municipal Corporation for the City of Kalyan and Dombivali Vs M/S. National Peroxide Ltd.

Mr. Swapnil a. Bagul and Anr. Vs M/S. Shishu Vikas Sanstha and Ors.

Anil Gajanan Bhagat Vs State of Maharashtra, through Urban Development Dept and Ors.

Sharekhan Ltd. Vs Rajesh Shah and Anr.