Dismissed

Tata Capital Financial Services Limited v. Himatsingka Auto Enterprises and 4 Ors.

Bombay HC10 Nov 2017CHS/1106/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay disposed of an arbitration petition and chamber summons where the parties had amicably settled the matter via consent terms recorded on 9th November 2017, accepted the undertakings regarding court receiver charges, and numbered the summons.

What did the court decide?

Petition and chamber summons disposed of after recording of consent terms; applicant to remove objections and get summons numbered within two weeks.

Tata Capital Financial Services Limited Vs Himatsingka Auto… — Arbitration | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

903.CHSL-1369-2017.doc

¶2

1/2

¶3

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

¶4

CHAMBER SUMMONS (L) NO.1369 OF 2017 IN

¶5

ARBITRATION PETITION NO.22 OF 2016

¶6

Tata Capital Financial Services Limited ….Applicant/Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

Himatsingka Auto Enterprises and Ors.

¶9

....Respondents

¶10

Mr. Karl Tamboly a/w. Mr. Tushar Kadam and Ms. Radhika Dixit i/b. MDP and Partners for petitioner.

¶11

Mr. Hari Dasan Evk, authorised representative of petitioner present. Mr. Girish Thakur for respondents.

¶12

Mr. Rajesh Kumar Himatsingka, respondent no.2 and constituted attorney of other respondents present.

¶13

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

¶14

1 Parties have amicably settled the matter. The consent terms

¶15

dated 9^th November, 2017 signed by the authorised signatory of petitioner,

¶16

respondent no.2 for himself and as constituted attorney of respondent nos.1, 3 and 4 and their respective advocates is taken on record and marked 'X' for identification.

¶17

2 The statement of Mr. Rajeshkumar Himatsingka, respondent

¶18

no.2, who has signed the consent terms, that respondent no.5 was his wife,

¶19

who has since expired and apart from him, respondent nos.3 and 4 are the

¶20

only legal heirs and there are no other legal heirs of respondent no.5 is accepted as solemn statement to this Court.

¶21

Gauri Gaekwad

¶22

903.CHSL-1369-2017.doc

¶23

2/2

¶24

3 Order in terms of the consent terms. All undertakings given in the consent terms are accepted and so ordered.

¶25

4 Counsel for petitioner states that if there are any charges to be paid to the Court Receiver till the Court Receiver is discharged, the charges will be paid to the Court Receiver by petitioner within two weeks of receiving a communication to that effect from the Court Receiver. Statement accepted.

¶26

5 Petition accordingly stands disposed. Chamber summons also stands disposed. Notwithstanding disposal of the chamber summons, applicant to remove all office objections and get the chamber summons numbered within two weeks from today.

¶27

Gauri Gaekwad

Tata Capital Financial Services Limited v. Himatsingka Auto Enterprises and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tata Capital Financial Services Limited v. Himatsingka Auto Enterprises and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

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

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

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