Disposed

Prathamesh Udyog and 2 Ors. v. Reliance Capital Limited

Bombay HC20 Jan 2016ARBP/101/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court heard a petition challenging an interim order of a sole Arbitrator under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act. The order directed payment of Rs.15 lacs. The arbitrator subsequently modified the order to allow payment in installments and disposed of the reference, preserving the petitioners challenge regarding jurisdiction.

What did the court decide?

Petition heard; submissions regarding notice and jurisdiction kept open. Arbitrator directed to dispose of reference after giving opportunity for reply.

Prathamesh Udyog and 2 Ors. Vs Reliance Capital Limited — Arbitration | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

arbpl82-16.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

ARBITRATION PETITION (L) NO.82 OF 2016

¶5

Prathamesh Udyog And 2 Ors. ...Petitioners

¶6

V/s.

¶7

Reliance Capital Limited ...Respondent

¶8

Mr. Prashant Phophale, i/b. PMH Law, for the Petitioners.

¶9

Mr. Padmakar Garad, i/b. S.. Legal & Associates, for the Respondent.

¶10

CORAM : S.C. GUPTE, J.

¶11

20 JANUARY, 2016

¶12

P.C. :

¶13

. The Arbitration petition, under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 impugns an interim order passed by a sole Arbitrator. By this order, the Arbitrator has asked the Petitioners to deposit a sum of Rs.15 lacs, in default of which, the Respondent has been permitted to repossess the machinery bought by the Petitioners under a finance agreement with the Respondent. The grievance of the Petitioners is that the entire order is passed without notice to the Petitioners and even without serving the statement of claim and interim application on the Petitioners. Learned Counsel for the Respondent submits that the Petitioners were served. Anyway, considering the fact that there are at least ten unpaid installments towards repayment of the finance and the Petitioners' readiness to pay those installments to the Respondent, if some time is given to them, the petition can be disposed of by directing the Petitioners to pay a sum of Rs. 2 lacs within a period of two weeks from today and a further

¶14

sg` Pg 1 of 2

¶15

arbpl82-16.doc

¶16

sum of Rs. 2 lacs within a period of six weeks thereafter and pay the balance amount of the installments due uptodate within a period of eight weeks thereafter. It is ordered accordingly. The Petitioners shall not create any third party rights in respect of the hypothecated equipment during the pendency of the reference. This order shall substitute the interim order passed by the Arbitrator. The Arbitrator shall now dispose of the arbitration reference after giving an opportunity to the Petitioners to submit their reply. The present challenge of the Petitioners to the impugned order is inter alia also on the footing that the Arbitrator lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the disputes and differences between the parties. It is clarified that the submissions of all the parties in this behalf are kept open.

¶17

( S.C.GUPTE, J. )

¶18

sg` Pg 2 of 2

Prathamesh Udyog and 2 Ors. v. Reliance Capital Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prathamesh Udyog and 2 Ors. v. Reliance Capital Limited

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

Rasiklal M. Dhariwal Karta of R.M. Dhariwal (H.U.F. ) andORS. Vs Kishore Washwani Also Kown as (Alias) Kishore Wadhwani and Anr.

Mr.Manhar P Khadawala Vs Mr.Rajesh M Khadawala and 7 Ors.

Larsen and Toubro Limited and Ors. Vs Grasim Industries Limited and Anr.

Su-Raj Diamonds N.V. Vs Aviraj Gems and 5 Ors.

Su-Raj Diamonds N.V. Vs M/S Aviraj Gems and 5 Ors.

Bhora Ventures Pvt. Ltd. Vs Rezcom Realty Pvt. Ltd.