Allowed

Arohi Infrastructure Private Limited and 10 Ors. v. Tata Capital Financial Services Limited

Bombay HC30 Sept 2016COMAP/43/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This bench disposed of two commercial appeals concerning conflicting interim orders on status quo passed by the Single Judge. It set aside the orders, granted a two-week extension of the status quo, and remanded the matter for the Single Judge to decide the final status of the interim order during arbitration hearings.

What did the court decide?

Interim order of status quo continued for two weeks; matter remanded to Learned Single Judge for final decision.

Arohi Infrastructure Private Limited and 10 Ors. Vs Tata Capital… — Arbitration | Bombay HC (2016)

1/6

COMAPL 25 of 2016

Vat

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

¶5

COMMERCIAL APPEAL (L) No. 25 OF 2016 IN COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION No. 67 OF 2016

¶6

WITH

¶7

NOTICE OF MOTION (L) No.21 OF 2016 IN COMMERCIAL APPEAL (L) No. 25 OF 2016 IN COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION No. 67 OF 2016

¶8

Arohi Infrastructure Private Limited and Ors. ….Appellants Vs. Tata Capital Financial Services Limited ...Respondents

¶9

WITH

¶10

COMMERCIAL APPEAL (L) No. 30 OF 2016 IN

¶11

COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION No. 67 OF 2016

¶12

WITH

¶13

NOTICE OF MOTION (L) No. 28 OF 2016 IN COMMERCIAL APPEAL (L) No. 30 OF 2016 IN COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION No. 67 OF 2016

¶14

Tata Capital Financial Services Limited ...Appellants Vs. Arohi Infrastructure Private Limited and Ors. ...Respondents

2/6

COMAPL 25 of 2016

******

Mr. Ravi Prakash a/w. Mr. Subir Kumar a/w. Budhaditya Bhattacharya i/b. Subir Kumar for Appellants in Commercial Appeal (L) No. 25 of 2016 and Respondents in Commercial Appeal (L) No. 30 of 2016.

¶19

Mr. S.U. Kamdar, Senior Counsel a/w. Mr. Ashok Paranjpe a/w. Tushar Kadam a/w. Deepan Dixit i/b. MDP & Partners for Appellants in Commercial Appeal (L) No. 30 of 2016 and Respondents in Commercial Appeal (L) No. 25 of 2016.

¶20

¶21

CORAM : V. M. KANADE & Mrs. SWAPNA S. JOSHI, JJ

¶22

DATE : SEPTEMBER 30, 2016

¶23

P.C. :

¶24

Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellants and Respondents in both the Commercial Appeals.

¶25

Two orders have been challenged before us passed by the Learned Single Judge viz. (1) dated 25^th August, 2016 and (2) dated 30^th August, 2015. The controversy is as to whether interim order passed by the Learned Single Judge [Coram: K.K. Tated, J.] dated 25^th February, 2016 granting order of status quo which was continued by order dated 1^st March, 2016 till next date of hearing is continued. The matter was finally disposed of by a short order dated 25^th August, 2016 passed in Arbitration Petition No. 1471 of 2015, which reads as under:

¶26

3/6 COMAPL 25 of 2016

¶27

“The above Petitions shall be treated as Petitions under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 by the learned Arbitrator and decided by the learned Arbitrator within a period of eight weeks from today. In view thereof, the above Petitions are accordingly disposed off.”

¶28

Thereafter, again a second order dated 30^th August, 2016 was passed in Commercial Arbitration Petition (L) No. 110 of 2016 (Registration No. 67 of 2016), which reads as under:

¶29

“Without going into the controversy raised in the above Petition, the order dated 25^th August, 2016 is set aside and Arbitration Petition No. 1471 of 2015 is kept for hearing on 1^st September, 2016. The above Arbitration Petition is accordingly disposed of.”

¶30

Both the parties have challenged the said orders by filing commercial appeals viz. Arohi Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. And Ors. have challenged the orders dated 25^th August, 2016 by filing their Commercial Appeal (L) No. 25 of 2016 and Tata Capital Financial Service Ltd. have challenged the order dated 30^th August, 2016 by filing their Commercial Appeal (L) No. 30 of 2016.

¶31

It is the contention of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of

¶32

4/6

¶33

COMAPL 25 of 2016

¶34

the Appellants viz. Arohi Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. that the interim order passed by Shri Justice K.K. Tated stands vacated. He has relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Ashok Kumar and Ors. vs. State of Haryana and Anr. [(2007) 3 SCC 470] in support of his contention .

¶35

On the other hand, Shri Kamdar, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellants viz. Tata Capital Housing Finance Limited has submitted that since it has not been clarified whether the interim order is continued or not, they have filed Arbitration Petition (L) No. 110 of 2016, which was disposed of by the impugned order dated 30^th August, 2016, setting aside the order dated 25^th August, 2016 and Arbitration Petition No. 1471 of 2015 is now kept for hearing before the Learned Single Judge.

¶36

What happened during the intervening period is the question, which falls for consideration before this Court. Having perused the orders, it does appear that no reasons have been assigned by the Learned Single Judge while passing the orders dated 25^th August, 2016 and 30^th August, 2016. Obviously, since the Learned Single Judge was of the view that since the arbitration petition is being heard separately, no further orders are required.

¶37

5/6

¶38

COMAPL 25 of 2016

¶39

In order to put an end of the said controversy, we are, therefore, of the view that it will be possible to set aside both the matters and remand back the matter to the Learned Single Judge, who may decide whether the interim order passed by Shri Justice K.K. Tated, should continue till hearing of the application under section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 or not. In order to safeguard the interest of both the parties, status quo granted by Shri Justice K.K.Tated on 25^th February, 2016 shall continue for a period of two weeks. The Appellants – Tata Capital Financial Services Ltd. may move before the Learned Single Judge for continuation of the interim order during the pendency of the Arbitration Petition No. 1471 of 2015.

¶40

Hence both the commercial appeals are disposed of. It is clarified that this interim order is passed only in order to facilitate both the parties to approach before the Learned Single Judge for necessary clarification. All contentions raised by both the parties are kept open.

¶41

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellants – Arohi Infrastructure Private Limited has made a request to ask the Learned Single Judge to decide the matter expeditiously. Accordingly

¶42

6/6

¶43

COMAPL 25 of 2016

¶44

in view of the request made by the learned counsel for the appellants, we request the Learned Single Judge to decide the matter expeditiously.

¶45

Mrs. SWAPNA S. JOSHI, J. V.M. KANADE, J.

¶46

Vaishali Tikam

Arohi Infrastructure Private Limited and 10 Ors. v. Tata Capital Financial Services Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arohi Infrastructure Private Limited and 10 Ors. v. Tata Capital Financial Services Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Joshi Shivshankar Jatashankar Vs the Commissioner,Bmc,Mumbai and 32 Thers

Joshi Shivshankar Jatashankar Vs the Commissioner,Bmc,Mumbai and 32 Thers

Ramesh Dhanrajji Solanki Vs the State of Maharashtra and 7 Ors.

Ramchandra Jyoti Patil Vs the Managing Director- Kolhapur Zillha Sahakari Doodh Utpadak Sangh Ltd.

Ramchandra Jyoti Patil Vs the Managing Director- Kolhapur Zillha Sahakari Doodh Utpadak Sangh Ltd.

rohini damji sidpra Vs tata share registry Ltd. and 5 Ors.