Dismissed

M/S Siemens Financial Services Private Limited v. M/S. Kudos Chemie Ltd. and 2 Others

Bombay HC22 Nov 2017NMS/926/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay dismissed an application by Siemens Financial Services Private Ltd. seeking to restore an interim order dated 9.9.2015 mandating the appointment of an arbitrator within four weeks. The court rejected the petitioner's explanation for the delay in complying with the order and filing the notice of motion nearly three years later.

What did the court decide?

Prayer to restore the ad-interim order dated 9.9.2015 and continue the same was dismissed.

M/S Siemens Financial Services Private Limited Vs M/S… — Specific Performance | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

NMS926.17-69

¶2

1/3

¶3

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

¶4

NOTICE OF MOTION NO.926 OF 2017 IN ARBITRATION PETITION NO.1123 OF 2015

¶5

Siemens Financial Services Private Ltd. )….Applicant IN THE MATTER BETWEEN Siemens Financial Services Private Ltd. )….Petitioner V/s. Kudos Chemic Ltd. and Ors. )....Respondents

¶6

Mr.Shavez Mukri i/by India Law for the applicant/petitioner. None for respondents.

¶7

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

¶8

P.C.:-

¶9

1 This application is to restore the ad-interim order dated 9.9.2015 and continue the same.

¶10

2 On 9.9.2015, this court was pleased to grant ad-interim

¶11

relief and petitioner was directed to take steps for appointment of arbitrator if not already appointed. Paragraph-6 of the order reads as under :-

¶12

“If the petitioner does not take steps for appointment of the arbitrator within four weeks from today, if not already appointed, interim order passed today to stand vacated without further reference to the Court.”

NMS926.17-69

2/3

3 Section 9(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 provides as under :-

¶17

“(2) Where, before the commencement of the arbitral proceedings, a Court passes an order for any interim measure of protection under sub-section (1), the arbitral proceedings shall be commenced within a period of ninety days from the date of such order or within such further time as the Court may determine”

¶18

4 Though the amendment came into effect on 23.10.2015, still the petitioner was granted a reasonable time to commence arbitration proceedings and court while passing an order dated 9.9.2015 has felt that reasonable time was four weeks. Petitioner, as it seems, has filed an application under Section 11 of the Act but paragraph-8 of the affidavit in support does not even mention what is the application number and the date on which it was lodged. Mr.Mukri appearing for petitioner states that it was lodged on 7.4.2017.

¶19

5 The only explanation given in the incomplete paragraph-8 of the affidavit in support is “ I say that inadvertently the said condition to appoint an Arbitrator could not be complied within the specified time”. This explanation is neither here nor there and

¶20

¶21

3/3 NMS926.17-69

¶22

petitioner cannot take the court for granted. It was the duty of petitioner to explain each days' delay and this kind of general statement cannot be accepted. It should also be noted that this Notice of Motion itself has been lodged only on 25.5.2017 when 4 weeks period granted on 9.9.2015 expired on 7.10.2015.

¶23

6 In the circumstances, the prayer as sought in this Notice of Motion cannot be granted.

¶24

Notice of Motion dismissed.

¶25

(K.R.SHRIRAM,J)

¶26

M/S Siemens Financial Services Private Limited v. M/S. Kudos Chemie Ltd. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Siemens Financial Services Private Limited v. M/S. Kudos Chemie Ltd. and 2 Others

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