Disposed

Siddhanta Ashdhir and Anr. v. M/S. Dhiraj Motion Pictures Pvt. Ltd. and 3 Ors.

Bombay HC22 Nov 2017CARBP/126/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Bombay High Court appointed a sole arbitrator by consent to adjudicate disputes arising from agreements between the petitioners and respondents. Fees are to be shared equally, and objections regarding agreement execution are to be raised before the arbitrator.

What did the court decide?

Appointment of Mr. Piyush Raheja as sole arbitrator; equal sharing of fees; objection regarding non-signature kept open.

Siddhanta Ashdhir and Anr. Vs M/S. Dhiraj Motion Pictures Pvt… — Arbitration | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

CARBP126.17-38

¶2

1/3

¶3

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

¶4

COMM.ARBITRATION PETITION NO.126 OF 2017

¶5

Mr.Siddhanta Ashdhir & Anr. )….Petitioners

¶6

V/s.

¶7

M/s.Dhiraj Motion Picture Pvt. Ltd.& Ors. )....Respondents

¶8

Mr.Anand Mishra i/by A.M.Saraogi for petitioners.

¶9

Ms.Aparna Vhatkar a/w Mr.Gajendra Jadhav i/by Shailesh I.Kanthria for respondent no.1.

¶10

Mr.Zal Andhyarujina a/w Mr.A.Dasgupta i/by Jhangiani, Narulla & Associates for respondent no.2. Ms.Megha Chandra i/by Naik Naik and Co. for respondent no.3. Ms.Deepti Panda a/w Mr.Kunal Parekh i/by M/s.Thakore Jariwala & Associates for respondent no.4.

¶11

CORAM : K.R.SHRIRAM,J DATE : 22.11.2017

¶12

P.C.:-

¶13

1 The matter was heard for some time on 15.11.2017. Today

¶14

Mr.Saraogi for petitioners states that petitioners will drop respondent nos.3 & 4 and will take such other proceedings as advised. Therefore, respondent nos.3 & 4 are struck off with liberty to petitioners to take such steps in accordance with law.

¶15

2 Counsel for petitioners and counsel for respondent nos.1 & 2 state in unison that they are ready and willing to refer all disputes which is the subject matter of arbitration petition to sole arbitrator.

CARBP126.17-38

2/3

3 Accordingly, following order is passed, by consent.

¶20

ORDER

¶21

(a) Mr.Piyush Raheja, an advocate practicing

¶22

in this court, having his office at 302, B-wing, Jort Chambers, above Stock Exchange post office, Homi Modi 2^nd Cross Lane, Fort Mumbai-400 001, Mobile no.9833385090, is appointed as sole arbitrator to adjudicate upon all disputes and differences, including counter claim, if any, arising out of, in relation to and or in connection with the two agreements dated 3.10.2015 entered into between petitioners and respondent nos.1 & 2;

¶23

(b) The fees, administrative expenses, typing charges and venue charges shall be shared equally between the parties i.e., 50% by petitioners and 50% by respondent nos.1 & 2 and the same will be cost in the arbitral proceeding ;

¶24

(c) Within 3 weeks of receiving a copy of this order either from the advocates for petitioners or for respondents, the learned Arbitrator shall file with the parties, disclosure in writing as required under Section 11(8) read with section 12(1) of Arbitration and

CARBP126.17-38

3/3

Conciliation Act 1996;

¶29

(d) All rights and contentions of parties are

¶30

kept open including the stand of respondent no.2 that agreements relied upon, have not been signed by respondent no.2 and there is no arbitration clause so far as respondent no.2 is concerned ;

¶31

(e) Liberty to parties to file a photo copy of the petition along with affidavits in reply and rejoinder if any, which the arbitrator will consider as an application under Section 17 of the said Act ;

¶32

(f) Parties are at liberty to file further affidavits and documents before the arbitrator ;

¶33

(g) Petition accordingly stands disposed.

¶34

4 In view of this order, Arbitration Application No.88 of 2017 stands disposed.

¶35

(K.R.SHRIRAM,J)

¶36

Siddhanta Ashdhir and Anr. v. M/S. Dhiraj Motion Pictures Pvt. Ltd. and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Siddhanta Ashdhir and Anr. v. M/S. Dhiraj Motion Pictures Pvt. Ltd. and 3 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 Krishna Valley Corporation Vs M/S Maneesh Pharmaceuticlas Private Limited Cin U24230MH1985PLC036952

G. M. Construction, through Prop. Vinodkumar Baliram Prasad Vs Crest Logistics and Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Cin No. U40101MH2004PTC146486

Ahmedabad Infracon Pvt. Ltd. Vs Crest Logistics and Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Cin No. U40101MH2004PTC146486

Meenanath Fatarpekar Vs Micro Strategy India Pvt. Ltd.

Tata Capital Housing Finance Ltd. Vs Mr.Prabhakar S. Bhadke and M/S. Anupama P. Bhadke

Steel Chamber of India Vs Kalamboli Weighbridge Private Limited