Allowed

Dolphin Offshore Enterprises (India) Limited v. Essar Offshore Subsea Limited

Bombay HC28 Nov 2017CARAP/16/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an arbitration enforcement proceeding, the Bombay High Court ruled that the respondents forfeited their right to appoint an arbitrator due to delay. Consequently, the court appointed a retired judge as the sole arbitrator on behalf of the respondents.

What did the court decide?

Appointment of Mr. Justice V.M. Kanade as sole arbitrator on behalf of the respondents.

Dolphin Offshore Enterprises (India) Limited Vs Essar Offshore… — Arbitration | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

CARAP16.17-13

¶2

1/2

¶3

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

¶4

IN ITS COMMERCIAL DIVISION

¶5

COMM.ARBITRATION APPLICATION NO.16 OF 2017

¶6

Dolphin Offshore Enterprises (India) Limited )….Applicant V/s.

¶7

Essar Offshore Subsea Limited

¶8

)....Respondents

¶9

Mr.V.K.Ramabhadran, Senior Advocate a/w Mr.Suraj Desai i/by Suraj Desai Almeida for the applicant.

¶10

Mr.Srinivas A.Chatti i/by Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas for respondents.

¶11

---- CORAM : K.R.SHRIRAM,J DATE : 28.11.2017

¶12

P.C.:-

¶13

1 At the beginning counsel for respondents stated that

¶14

respondents also wish to appoint only one arbitrator instead of panel of 3 arbitrators but respondents are not agreeable to Mr.Justice Mohit

¶15

Shah as sole arbitrator. Matter was stood over for respondents' counsel to take instructions and suggest a name. When the matter was called out again counsel for respondents stated that Mr.K.R.Tiwari, an advocate practicing in this court be appointed as sole arbitrator or atleast as respondents' nominee arbitrator.

¶16

2 Counsel for respondents does not dispute that there is an arbitration agreement. Counsel for respondents also does not dispute

¶17

¶18

2/2 CARAP16.17-13

¶19

that they have received a letter invoking arbitration from the applicant nominating Mr.Justice Mohit Shah, former Chief Justice of this Court and of Calcutta High Court.

¶20

3 The Apex Court in its judgment in the matter of¹ Datar Switchgears Ltd. vs. Tata Finance Ltd. & Anr. has held that if the party that had a right to make an appointment does not make the appointment before the application under Section 11 is filed, forfeits that right to make appointment. Respondents having failed to make the appointment, have forfeited its right to appoint arbitrator.

¶21

4 Therefore, this court appoints Mr.Justice V.M.Kanade (retired), former Judge of this court having his office at Examiner Press Building, 2^nd Floor, Office No.19, Dalal Street, Near Dwarka Hotel, Fort, Mumbai, Mobile No.9820308228, as arbitrator on behalf of respondents ;

¶22

5 Application accordingly stands disposed.

¶23

(K.R.SHRIRAM,J)

¶24

1 (2000) 8 Supreme Court Cases 151

¶25

Dolphin Offshore Enterprises (India) Limited v. Essar Offshore Subsea Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dolphin Offshore Enterprises (India) Limited v. Essar Offshore Subsea Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Idbi Trusteeship Services Ltd. Vs Spanco Telesystems and Solution Ltd.

Lkp Finance Limited Vs Wisdom Global Enterprises Limited (Cin U51909MH2002PLC137824)

M/S. Aditya Polymers and Chemicals (I) Pvt. Ltd. Vs Innotech Polyfabriks Limited (Cin U17118MH1995PLC089354)

M/S. Adarsh Enterprise Vs Official Liquidator of Raga Engineering Pvt. Ltd.

Sahara Adventure Sports Ltd. Vs Board of Control for Cricket in India

M/S. Srikrishna Polymer Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs Covestro (India) Pvt. Ltd.