Dismissed

Nayan Arvind Shah v. Jayesh Kanji Maru and Anr.

Bombay HC14 Mar 2017CARBP/215/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court passed an interim order under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, mandating equal contribution by partners for bank loan repayments and third-party claims, and restraining creation of third-party interests pending appointment of an arbitrator.

What did the court decide?

Interim order directing equal contribution to bank loan and third-party claims pending arbitral appointment; restraint on creating third-party interests.

Nayan Arvind Shah Vs Jayesh Kanji Maru and Anr. — Arbitration | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

20-CARBPL1-17.DOC

¶2

ATUL

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION IN ITS COMMERCIAL DIVISION COMM ARBITRATION PETITION (L) NO. 1 OF 2017

¶4

Nayan Arvind Shah…Petitioner
Versus
Jayesh Kanji Maru & Anr…Respondents

¶5

Mr Pravin Samdani, Senior Advoate, with Prateek Seksaria, Nivit
Srivastava, i/b Maniar Srivastava Associates, for the Petitioner.
Mr Snehal Shah, with Deepti Panda, i/b AKS Legal Consultants, for
Respondent No. 1.
Ms B Sawani, i/b Raval Shah, for Respondent No. 2-Bank.

¶6

CORAM: G.S. PATEL, J DATED: 14th March 2017

¶7

PC:-

¶8

1.The partnership firm of which the Petitioner and the 1st
Respondent are (or were) partners is indebted to the 2nd
Respondent Bank. The loan is secured by a mortgage. The monthly
payment due to the Bank is Rs. 10,00,139/-. The 1st Respondent
claims to have dissolved the partnership. This is clearly something
that will have to be taken to the arbitration.

¶9

Page 1 of 3
14th March 2017

¶10

20-CARBPL1-17.DOC

¶11

2. While parties are in discussions about a mutually agreed sole Arbitrator, they also agree that the following interim order can operate from this point onward and pending the arbitration:

¶12

(a) As regards the claim to the Bank, both the Petitioner and the 1st Respondent will contribute equally the amount to be paid as a monthly instalment to the Bank towards repayment of loan from March 2017 onwards;

¶13

(b) There also some allottees of flats. Some have filed claims either in Court or before a Consumer Forum demanding a return of the advances they paid. Both the Petitioner and 1st Respondent agree that they will meet these claims in equal shares once these claims are adjudicated by a Court or a Tribunal. They also agree that neither the Petitioner nor the 1st Respondent will on its own and without the consent of the other submit to a decree and/or order before any Court or Tribunal;

¶14

(c) The Petitioner and the 1st Respondent are also free to agree that any claim by any flat allottee is legitimate and should be paid. If so, they will pay that amount in equal shares;

¶15

(d) Both the Petitioner and the 1st Respondent agree that they will not, pending arbitration, create any third party rights or interests in respect of the project property;

¶16

Page 2 of 3
14th March 2017

¶17

20-CARBPL1-17.DOC

¶18

3. Liberty to both sides to make an appropriate application before the sole arbitrator to be appointed under Section 17 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act 1996 for any other or remaining reliefs. All contentions of both sides are left open;

¶19

4. The Affidavit in Sur-Rejoinder is taken on file.

¶20

5.This order will replace and substitute the previous ad-interim
order dated 19th January 2017.

¶21

6. This Arbitration Petition is disposed of in these terms with no order as to costs. 7. List Arbitration Application (L) No. 161 of 2017 on the adinterim board tomorrow.

¶22

(G. S. PATEL, J.)

¶23

Page 3 of 3
14th March 2017

Nayan Arvind Shah v. Jayesh Kanji Maru and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nayan Arvind Shah v. Jayesh Kanji Maru and Anr.

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

L. J. Tanna Shares and Securities Pvt. Ltd. and 2 Ors. Vs Financial Technologies (India) Limited and 31 Ors.

Sunrise Agencies Vs Pepe Jeans India Limited

Samir Vali Sayyed Vs M/S. Millionaire Realtors and 2 Ors.

Neelu Chirag Trivedi and Anr. Vs Argento Home Products LLP and 2 Ors.

Shree Ameya Co. Operattive Housing Society Ltd. Vs Smt Laxmibai Ganpat Chogle and 16 Others

Sony Pictures Networks India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Digivive Services Pvt. Ltd.