Disposed

Mr. Chandrakanr P Sanghvi and Ors. v. Mr. Anilkumar Phoolchand Sanghvi and Ors.

Bombay HC22 Mar 2016CRA/163/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a civil revision application challenging an order terminating an arbitrator's mandate, the High Court of Bombay allowed the withdrawal of the main application with liberty for the applicants to file a fresh application under Section 14 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act specifically on grounds of bias, pending questions of maintainability.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Application allowed to be withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh application under Section 14 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act on the ground of bias only.

Mr. Chandrakanr P Sanghvi and Ors. Vs Mr. Anilkumar Phoolchand… — Arbitration | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

921.CRA.163-16.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

Civil Revision Application NO. 163 OF 2016

¶6

MR. CHANDRAKANT P SANGHVI AND ORS

¶7

...Applicants

¶8

Versus

¶9

MR. ANILKUMAR PHOOLCHAND SANGHVI AND ORS

¶10

...Respondents

¶11

WITH

¶12

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.191 OF 2016 IN

¶13

CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.163 OF 2016

¶14

Mr. S.U. Kamdar, Senior Advocate a/w. Dhuram Jumani, Manik Joshi, Aditi Shukla & Pragya Khaitan i/b. Crawford Bayley & Co., for the Applicants.

¶15

Mr. Shiraj Rustomjee, Senior Advocate i/b. Dastur Kalambi & Associates, for the Respondents.

¶16

CORAM : R. G. KETKAR, J.

¶17

DATE : 22^nd MARCH, 2016

¶18

P.C.

¶19

Heard Mr. S.U. Kamdar, learned Senior Counsel for the

¶20

applicants and Mr. Shiraj Rustomjee, learned Senior Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3, at length.

1 / 3

921.CRA.163-16.doc

By this application under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'CPC'), the applicants have challenged the judgment and order dated 8.2.2016 passed by learned Principal District Judge, Pune in Civil Misc. Application No.605/2015. By that order, learned Principal District Judge rejected the application filed by the applicants under Section 14(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, 'Act') for declaring that the mandate of Mr. Justice N.K. Sodhi (Retd.), who was appointed vide the order dated 20.6.2013 to act as the sole Arbitrator for adjudication of disputes and differences between the applicants and the respondents, stands terminated on two grounds, namely, (1) undue delay and charging fees, and (2) shoulder injury sustained by the learned Arbitrator.

¶25

After arguing the application for quite some time, Mr. Kamdar seeks permission to withdraw this application with liberty to file fresh application under section 14 of the Act only on the ground of bias of the learned Arbitrator.

¶26

Mr. Rustomjee submits that if liberty is granted to the applicants to file fresh application under Section 14 of the Act,

2 / 3

921.CRA.163-16.doc

then it may be clarified that the liberty is granted to file fresh application if permissible in law and all contentions of respondent Nos.1 to 3, including the objection as regards maintainability of such an application, may be kept open.

¶31

In view thereof, on the motion made by Mr. Kamdar, Civil Revision Application is allowed to be withdrawn with liberty as prayed for. Civil Application No.191/2016 also stands disposed of. It is made clear that the applicants are at liberty to file application under Section 14 of the Act only on the ground of bias, if permissible in law. All contentions of the respondents, including the ground of maintainability, are kept open. It is further made clear that I have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the proposed proceedings.

¶32

( R. G. KETKAR, J.)

¶33

Deshmane (PS)

¶34

3 / 3

Mr. Chandrakanr P Sanghvi and Ors. v. Mr. Anilkumar Phoolchand Sanghvi and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Chandrakanr P Sanghvi and Ors. v. Mr. Anilkumar Phoolchand Sanghvi and Ors.

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

Smt Prabhawati Daniel Rathod and Anr. Vs Jhon Maruti Salve

Shri. Girish Ghanashyamdas Lohana Vs Shri. Giridharilal Irasdas Lalwani

Ramgonda Lingappa Patil (Decd) through Lrs. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shri. Mahendrakumar Motilal Banthia and Ors. Vs Bonafide Building Material Suppliers through Its Partners

Narayan Laxman Dhuri and Ors. Vs Dattaram Arjun Dhuri and Ors.

Shree Navnath Developers and Ors. Vs Nathalal Balubhai Makwana