The High Court of Bombay allowed an arbitration petition filed under Section 27 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking a witness summons to produce documents, as the respondent had no objection.
The petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause 18(a)(i) and (ii).
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
905-ARBPL-116-16.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ARBITRATION PETITION (L) NO. 116 OF 2016
S.M. Computers Private Limited & Ors. …Petitioners Versus State of Maharashtra & Anr. …Respondents
Mr. P. Jaiswal, a/w Mr. Rubin Vakil, i/b Anup Khaitan & Co., for the Petitioners.
Ms. Namrata Jani, i/b Dastur Kalambi & Associates, for the Respondents.
CORAM : S.C. GUPTE, J. DATE : 17th February 2016
P.C. :
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, after seeking the requisite approval from the sole Arbitrator for issuing witness summons to produce documents.
2. Learned Counsel for the Respondents has no objection to the Petition being allowed. The Petition is accordingly, allowed in terms of prayer clause 18 a(i) and (ii).
Sharayu . 1 / 2
905-ARBPL-116-16.doc
Petitioners.
[S.C. GUPTE, J.]
2 / 2
Sharayu .
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petition under Section 27 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking a witness summons to produce documents be allowed.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
S.M. Computers Private Limited & Ors.
State of Maharashtra & Anr.
S.C. Gutte
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
