Disposed

Shaila Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. v. Maharashtra Rajya Sahakari Dudh Mahasangh Maryadit

Bombay HC3 Mar 2017CARAP/25/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The bench designated the sole arbitrator Mr Cyrus Ardeshir for a first meeting on 9th March 2017, confirmed the continuation of ad interim orders for six weeks, and kept all rights and contentions open for the arbitrator to decide.

What did the court decide?

Arbitrator designated; first meeting fixed for 9 March 2017; interim orders continue for six weeks; rights and contentions kept open.

Shaila Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. Vs Maharashtra Rajya Sahakari Dudh… — Arbitration | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

910-CARAP-25-2017.DOC

¶2

Jsn

¶3

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

¶4

ARBITRATION APPLICATIN NO. 25 OF 2017

¶5

Shaila Hospitality Pvt Ltd …Petitioner
Versus
Maharashtra Rajya Sahakari Dudh Mahasangh …Respondent
Maryadit

¶6

Mr Darshan Mehta, and Mr Varun Nathani i/b Dhruve Liladhar &
Co for the Petitioner.
Mr Rohit P Sakhadeo, for the Respondent.

¶7

CORAM:G.S. PATEL, J
DATED:3rd March 2017

¶8

PC:-

¶9

1.Parties agree to refer their disputes and differences to the Sole
Arbitration of Mr Cyrus Ardeshir, learned Advocate of this Court.
His statement of disclosure under Section 11(8) read with Section
12(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 is taken on
record. The disclosure is in the form of tabular signed statement and
a formal statement of disclosure. Both are taken on record and
marked “X” and “X1” for identification with today’s date.

¶10

2.Mr Ardeshir will hold his first meeting subject to his
convenience on 9th March 2017 at 5.15 p.m. at a venue of his choice.

¶11

Page 1 of 2

¶12

3rd March 2017

¶13

910-CARAP-25-2017.DOC

¶14

Mr Mehta for the Petitioner will communicate this order to Mr
Ardeshir by Monday 6th March 2017.

¶15

3.The previous ad interim orders will continue for a period of
six weeks from today. Both sides will be at liberty to make an
application for a appropriate reliefs before the learned Sole
Arbitrator.

¶16

4.All rights and contentions are kept open. It will be for the
learned Arbitrator to decide whether to continue the previous ad
interim order, or to modify or vacate it.

¶17

5.The Arbitration Application is disposed of in these terms.
There will be no order as to costs.

¶18

(G. S. PATEL, J.)

¶19

Page 2 of 2
3rd March 2017

Shaila Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. v. Maharashtra Rajya Sahakari Dudh Mahasangh Maryadit

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shaila Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. v. Maharashtra Rajya Sahakari Dudh Mahasangh Maryadit

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

Sunny Ganesh Jaiswal and 4 Ors. Vs Subhash D. Jaiswal and 4 Ors.

Hindustan Unilever Ltd. Vs Chandni Soap Works

Hindustan Unilever Ltd. Vs Bhola Gruha Udyog

Hasanrao Shankarrao Deshmukh and Anr. Vs Monsanto Technology Llc and Anr.

General Insurance Corporation of India Vs H.T.Media Ltd.

Pushp Holdings Ltd. Vs M/S. Rhea Arts and 4 Ors. and Kusum Jitendra Nirula (Applicant)