Dismissed

Priyadarshi Purnanand Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. and Another v. Tata Cipatal Financial Services Ltd.

Bombay HC16 Feb 2017APP/108/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal challenged the maintainability of an appeal against an order recording consent minutes under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The High Court held that since both parties signed the consent terms, no appeal is maintainable. The Court dismissed the appeal.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed; Interim order stands vacated.

Priyadarshi Purnanand Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. and Another Vs Tata… — Arbitration | Bombay HC (2017)

1/2

APPL/53/2017

BDPPS

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

¶5

APPEAL (L) NO. 53 OF 2017 IN

¶6

ARBITRATION PETITION NO.311 OF 2016

¶7

Priyadarshi Purnanand Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

¶8

….. Appellants.

¶9

V/s

¶10

Tata Capital Finance Services Ltd.

¶11

Mr. Ram Apte, Senior Counsel a/w Mr. Samir A. Vaidya for the Appellants.

¶12

Mr. Mayur Khandeparkar a/w Mr. Nilesh Gala i/b Law Square for the Respondents.

¶13

Dr. M.S. Deshpande, Court Receiver a/w Ms. Kavita Ambekar Iind Assistant to Court Receiver, present.

¶14

CORAM: V.M. KANADE & P. R. BORA, JJ. DATE: 16^th February, 2017

¶15

P.C.:-

¶16

1] Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant and the learned Counsel for the Respondents.

¶17

2] Mr. Khandeparkar, the learned Counsel for the Respondents raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the appeal.

¶18

2/2

¶19

APPL/53/2017

¶20

He has raised preliminary objection that appeal against the order passed by the learned Single Judge under section 9 where consent terms were filed by the parties is not maintainable.

¶21

3] We have perused the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Before the learned Single Judge, Consent Minutes were filed which were signed by both the parties and the learned Single Judge was pleased to pass the order in terms of Consent Terms. Undertaking given by the parties was also accepted. It is therefore apparent that both the parties had agreed to file the said Consent Terms before the learned Single Judge. In our view, no appeal is maintainable against such order . If the contention of the Appellant is that the said Consent Terms were signed on the basis of fraudulent misrepresentation, the only remedy which is available to the Appellant is to go back to the same Court for seeking clarification .

¶22

4] We are therefore not inclined to interfere with the said order passed by the learned Single Judge. Appeal is dismissed. Interim order stands vacated.

¶23

(P. R. BORA, J. )

Priyadarshi Purnanand Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. and Another v. Tata Cipatal Financial Services Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Priyadarshi Purnanand Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. and Another v. Tata Cipatal Financial Services Ltd.

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

Jaitoon Fateh Mohd. Khatri Vs Konkan Irrigation Development Corporation and 2 Ors.

Jaitoon Fateh Moh. Khatri Vs Konkan Irrigation Development Corporation and Anr.

Bhatia Industries and Infrastructure Limited Vs Asian Natural Resources (India) Limited and Anr.

Atharv Enterprises Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Atharv Enterprises Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Ishwar Prasad G. Khandelwal Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.