Disposed

Satellite Developers Pvt.Ltd. v. Priya Naresh Athawale and Ors.

Bombay HC10 Nov 2017CAR/41/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of Civil Application No. 41 of 2017, permitting the applicant to pursue its Section 9 petition for appointment of an arbitrator. The Court fixed the hearing date for the pending arbitration appeal (C.A. 28/2017).

What did the court decide?

Civil Application No. 41 of 2017 disposed; Civil Application No. 28 of 2017 disposed; Arbitration Appeal No. 26 of 2017 listed for further hearing.

Satellite Developers Pvt.Ltd. Vs Priya Naresh Athawale and Ors. — Arbitration | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

10.CAR-41-2017.doc

¶2

1/3

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.41 OF 2017 IN ARBITRATION APPEAL NO.26 OF 2017 IN ARBITRATION PETITION NO.11 OF 2016

¶5

Satellite Developers Pvt. Ltd. ….Applicant

¶6

Vs.

¶7

Priya Naresh Athawale and Ors. ....Respondents

¶8

WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.28 OF 2017 IN ARBITRATION APPEAL NO.26 OF 2017

¶9

Mr. Mayur Khandeparkar i/b. Mr. Mehul A. Shah for applicant. Mr. Karl Tamboly a/w. Mr. Sriniwas Bobade and Mr. Dinesh Shinde i/b. Mr. Ameya Malkan for respondents.

¶10

CORAM : K.R.SHRIRAM, J. DATE : 10^th NOVEMBER, 2017

¶11

P.C.:

¶12

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.41 OF 2017

¶13

1 Admittedly, applicant herein has also filed petition under

¶14

Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the said Act) being arbitration petition no.3 of 2017 before the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division Raigad at Alibaug.

¶15

2 Having heard the parties, in my view, the order passed by this Court on 21^st July, 2017 admitting the appeal lodging no.16165 of 2017 and restraining applicant from commencing arbitration in the present dispute till the final disposal of the appeal, should not come in the way of

Gauri Gaekwad

10.CAR-41-2017.doc

2/3

applicant pursuing its Section 9 petition no.3 of 2017. Mr. Khandeparkar in fairness agrees.

¶20

3 Mr. Tamboly, therefore, states that applicant herein will pursue the arbitration petition no.3 of 2017 and apply within two weeks from today to the concerned Court for early hearing of the matter. Mr. Khandeparkar states that appellant herein will give atleast two weeks notice to applicant herein, should appellants decide to dispose of or encumber or create third party rights or part with possession with respect to the property, which is the subject matter of dispute between the parties. 4 It is made clear that if the application as stated by Mr. Tamboly is not made within two weeks from today, this statement of Mr. Khandeparkar will come to an end. If the application is so made, then the statement will continue until the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division Raigad at Alibaug decides Section 9 petition no.3 of 2017.

¶21

5 The dispute has been going on since 2007 and has been going back and forth from one Court to another. The Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division Raigad at Alibaug is requested to dispose of arbitration petition no.3 of 2017 expeditiously.

¶22

6 The statement of Mr. Tamboly and Mr. Khandeparkar that their respective clients will not seek any adjournment is noted.

Gauri Gaekwad

10.CAR-41-2017.doc

3/3

7 In view of the above, civil application stands disposed.

¶27

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.28 OF 2017

¶28

1 Counsel state that the order passed on 21^st July, 2017 be

¶29

confirmed as order in this civil application and civil application accordingly be disposed.

¶30

2 Therefore, the order dated 21^st July, 2017 is confirmed as order

¶31

in this civil application and civil application accordingly stands disposed.

¶32

ARBITRATION APPEAL NO.26 OF 2017

¶33

Appeal to be listed for final hearing on 8^th December, 2017.

¶34

(K.R. SHRIRAM, J.)

¶35

Gauri Gaekwad

Satellite Developers Pvt.Ltd. v. Priya Naresh Athawale and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satellite Developers Pvt.Ltd. v. Priya Naresh Athawale 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

M/S Centrum Capital Limited Vs M/S Brics Leasing and Finance International Limited

Kotak Mahindra Old Mutual Life Insurance Ltd. Vs Maverick Insurance Solutions Pv.Tltd.

M/s. Ram Narayan Construction Vs M/s. Mantri Reality Ltd.

M/S. Ashoka Bridgeways Vs State of Maharashtra, through Executive Engineer

M/S Sunil Farm Engineering Company Thr. Its Authorise Signatory, Shri.Rajendra S/O. Kashinath Patil Vs Pune Zilla Parishad, Thr. Its Additional Chief Executive Officer

M/S Sunil Farm Engineering Company Thr. Its Authorise Signatory, Shri.Rajendra S/O. Kashinath Patil Vs Pune Zilla Parishad, Thr. Its Additional Chief Executive Officer