Allowed

Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai v. S.N. Thakkar Construction Co. Pvt.Ltd.

Bombay HC8 Oct 2015NMS/1480/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court allowed a notice of motion for restoration of an arbitration petition dismissed for default. The public applicant (Municipal Corporation) was allowed one opportunity to have the petition heard on merits despite unconvincing reasons for absence, but must pay Rs. 25,000 costs to the respondent.

What did the court decide?

Notice of Motion allowed on condition that petitioner pays Rs. 25,000 costs to respondent by 29th October 2015 to place petition on board.

Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai Vs S.N. Thakkar… — Arbitration | Bombay HC (2015)

nms1480.2014

1/4

Dusane

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

¶5

NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1480 OF 2014

¶6

¶7

ARBITRATION PETITION NO.1060 OF 2010

¶8

The Municipal Corporation for Greater .... Applicant Mumbai (Ori. Petitioner)

¶9

In the matter between

¶10

The Municipal Corporation for Greater .... Petitioner Mumbai

¶11

Vs.

¶12

S.N. Thakkar Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd.

¶13

.... Respondent

¶14

Mr. P.G. Lad alongwith Mr. R.Y. Sirsikar, Advocate for the Applicant/original Petitioner.

¶15

Mr. D.B. Singh, Advocate for the Respondent.

¶16

Coram : Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J. Date : 8^th October, 2015

¶17

P.C. :

¶18

1 This Notice of Motion is taken out by the Petitioner for restoration of the petition, which was dismissed for default

Dusane

2/4

nms1480.2014

on 2^nd September, 2014. Soon thereafter that on 25^th September, 2014, the petitioner filed the present Notice of Motion. In the affidavit-in-support of the Notice of Motion, the petitioner has given three reasons for not remaining present in the court. They are (i) inadvertence, (ii) concerned staff being on leave for Ganpati festival and (iii) the matter was not being noticed by the deponent of the affidavit. All the three reasons stated are devoid of particulars. Mr. Singh, the learned advocate for the respondent points out from the order dtd. 2^nd September, 2014 that the date of the petition had been fixed by the court at the instance and convenience of the advocate for the petitioner and despite the fact, the petitioner and advocate were absent. Mr. Lad, the learned advocate for the petitioner candidly admits that undoubtedly there was negligence on the part of the petitioner and it's advocate in attending to the matter and requests that the petitioner be given a chance to have the petition heard on merit.

¶23

2 Apart from the fact that the reasons stated in the affidavit-in-support of the Notice of Motion for non-attendance to the matter on the relevant date not being convincing, it is also to be noted that the petitioner had not moved the court for hearing of the Notice of Motion for more than a year after the same was filed. Mr. Singh, the learned advocate for the respondent submits that during the intervening period, the respondent has filed the proceedings for execution of the award impugned in the

nms1480.2014

Dusane

3/4

petition. It is only when the notice of the execution proceedings was served upon the petitioner that it has rushed to the court for orders on the Notice of Motion.

¶28

3 In my opinion, since the petitioner is a public institution, although the reasons stated in the affidavit-insupport of the Notice of Motion are not convincing, one opportunity can be given to the petitioner for having the petition heard on merits. However, the respondent will have to be compensated with costs. Hence, the Notice of Motion is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a) on condition that the petitioner pays costs quantified at Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) to the respondent on/or before 29^th October, 2015. If the costs are not paid by that date, the Notice of Motion will stand dismissed, without any further reference to the court. If the costs are paid, office to place the petition on board on 29^th October, 2015.

¶29

(Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J.)

Dusane

4/4 nms1480.2014

CERTIFICATE

Certified to be true and correct copy of the original signed Order.

Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai v. S.N. Thakkar Construction Co. Pvt.Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai v. S.N. Thakkar Construction Co. Pvt.Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A Navinchandra Steels Limited (Now a. Navinchandra Steels Pvt. Ltd.) Vs M/S. Shree Ram Urban Infrastructure Ltd.

Datamatics Software Services Ltd. and Anr. Vs Ondepay Networks Private Ltd. and Anr.

Raj Shipping Agencies Ltd. Vs Leighton India Contractors Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Known as Leighton Welspun Contractors Pvt. Ltd. )

Ayurved Rasashala, through Its President Vs Astute Management Consultancy Pvt. Ltd. (Amcpl) and Anr.

Ramnayan Saheblal Gupta Vs Municipal Corporation of Gr.Mumbai

Khar Gymkhana Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another