Disposed

Mr. Asir Chhanubhai Shaikh v. the State of Maharashtra Thr. the Collector,Pune and Ors.

Bombay HC7 Jul 2017ARP/15/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the applicant to withdraw their arbitration petitions invoking Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, with liberty to pursue other appropriate legal proceedings. The court explicitly stated it did not examine the merits of the case regarding the validity of the arbitration clause.

What did the court decide?

Petitions allowed to be withdrawn with liberty to adopt appropriate proceedings before the appropriate forum.

Mr. Asir Chhanubhai Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. the… — Arbitration | Bombay HC (2017)

6-ARP-16-2017

Shailaja

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶5

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶6

ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 16 OF 2017 WITH ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 15 OF 2017 WITH ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 18 OF 2017 WITH ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 19 OF 2017

¶7

Mr. Asir Chhanubhai Shaikh Vs.	] Applicant
The State of Maharashtra & Ors.	] Respondents

¶8

Mr. Girish Thigle a/w Mr. Tejesh Dande a/w Mr. Bharat Gadhavi, for petitioner i/b Tejesh Dande & Associates, for applicant. Mr. N.N. Singh, for respondents No. 2 to 5.

¶9

CORAM : R.G. KETKAR, J. DATE : 7^th JULY, 2017.

¶10

P.C .

¶11

Heard Mr. Thigle, learned Counsel for applicant and Mr. Singh, learned Counsel for respondents No. 2 to 5.

¶12

By these Petitions under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [for short 'Act'], the petitioner in each Petition has prayed for appointing an independent Arbitral Tribunal for adjudicating the disputes and differences inter se between the parties.

¶13

6-ARP-16-2017

¶14

¶15

Mr. Thigle has invited my attention to clause 30.1 and 30.2 as contained in Exhibit A to the Petitions which is extract of accepted tender for the contracts. He also invited my attention to the Government Resolution dated 27^th August, 2014 issued by Law and Judiciary Department of Government of Maharashtra. He relied upon Section 7 of the Act as also decisions of this Court:

¶16

[1] Harbhajan Sarabjeet & Associates Vs. Maharashtra Krishna Valley Development Corporation & Anr, 2010 (6) Bom. C.R. 20 and

¶17

[2] B. Narayan & Associates Vs. City of Nagpur Corporation, 2010 B.C.I., 1.

¶18

to contend that clauses 30.1 and 30.02 constitute arbitration agreement.

¶19

On the other hand, Mr. Singh raised preliminary objection about maintainability of the Petitions under Section 11 of the Act on the ground that clauses 30.1 and 30.2 do not constitute arbitration agreement. He relied upon decision of this Court in Arbitration Application No. 117 of 2013 in the case of B.T. Patil Construction & Swapnali Joint Venture & Ors. Vs. Maharashtra Krishna Valley Development Corporation, Pune & Ors decided on 11^th July, 2014 [Coram: R.D. Dhanuka, J.].

¶20

After arguing the Petitions for quite some time, Mr. Thigle seeks permission to withdraw these Petitions with a liberty to adopt appropriate proceedings before appropriate forum. He

¶21

3 6-ARP-16-2017

¶22

states that Petitioners will make application under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for excluding time spent by petitioners in prosecuting these Petitions in the High Court.

¶23

On the motion made by Mr. Thigle, petitions are allowed to be withdrawn with liberty as prayed for. It is made clear that I have not examined merits of the case. Order accordingly.

¶24

[R.G. KETKAR, J.]

Mr. Asir Chhanubhai Shaikh v. the State of Maharashtra Thr. the Collector,Pune and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Asir Chhanubhai Shaikh v. the State of Maharashtra Thr. the Collector,Pune and Ors.

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

M/S Adverts P.Ltd and Anr. Vs M Guruswamy and Ors.

Shetkari Shikshan Mandal through Chairman Vs Shri Raju Dhondiba Kaginkra and Ors.

The State of Maharashtra and Ors. Vs Maharashtra Rajya Chaturtha Shreni Sarkari Karmachari Sanghatana

Subhash Tukaram Nikam Vs the Maharashtra State Co-Operative Marketing Federation Ltd.

Mr. Asir Chhanubhai Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. the Collector,Pune and Ors.

Mr. Asir Chhanubhai Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. the Collector,Pune and Ors.