Disposed

Interglobe Technologies Pvt.Ltd v. the National Insurance Co.Ltd

Bombay HC27 Apr 2018ARBAP/44/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Upon a partisan disclosure by the proposed arbitrator meeting no objection, the Court appointed him as sole arbitrator under Section 12 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and disposed of the application.

What did the court decide?

Application under Section 11 and 12 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 disposed of by appointment of sole arbitrator.

Interglobe Technologies Pvt.Ltd Vs the National Insurance Co.Ltd — Arbitration | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

arbap 44 of 2018 (613).sxw

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ARBITRATION APPLICATION NO.44 OF 2018

¶3

…
Interglobe Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Applicant
versus

¶4

The National Insurance Co. Ltd.

¶5

...
Respondent

¶6

Mr. Vivek Kantawala with Mr. Amey Patil i/by M/s. Vivek Kantawala and Co., for
Applicant.
Mr. Shyam Kapadia i/by Mr. Saket Satapathy and Ms. Ankita Mishra (Tuli and Co.)
for Respondent.

¶7

CORAM: S.J. KATHAWALLA, J.

¶8

DATE: 27th APRIL, 2018

¶9

P.C.:

¶10

1. In paragraph 1 and clause (i) of paragraph 1 of the order dated 26^th April, 2018, Crime Insurance Policy number be read as under :

¶11

“Crime Insurance Policy No.251100/46/13/950000017 (Exhibit A to the
Application), attached to and forming part of Policy No.251100/46/14/9500000197.”

¶12

2.Pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 26th April, 2018, Mr. Zubin

¶13

Behramkamdin, Advocate, has filed his disclosure under Section 11 (8) read with
Section 12 (1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 as amended by the
Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 (3 of 2016) which is taken on
record. The Advocate for the parties state that they have gone through the said
disclosure and have no objection to the same. In view thereof, the following order is

¶14

passed by consent :

¶15

1/2

¶16

ssp

¶17

arbap 44 of 2018 (613).sxw

¶18

(i)Mr. Zubin Behramkamdin, Advocate, is appointed as the sole
Arbitrator to decide the disputes between the Applicant and Respondent arising out of
the Crime Insurance Policy No.251100/46/13/950000017 (Exhibit A to the
Application), attached to and forming part of Policy No.251100/46/14/9500000197
for the period of 23rd April, 2014 to 22nd April, 2015.

¶19

(ii)The parties shall appear before the learned Arbitrator in his chambers,
on 3rd May, 2018 at 5.00 p.m. and obtain necessary directions.

¶20

(iii)The parties shall be at liberty to move the learned Arbitrator under
Section 17 of the Act seeking ad-interim/interim reliefs.

¶21

(iv)The learned Arbitrator shall endeavour to pass his final Award within a
period of six months from the date of this order.

¶22

(v) The learned Arbitrator shall not grant adjournments to the parties
unless absolutely necessary.

¶23

(vi) All contentions of the parties are kept open.

¶24

(vii) The cost of arbitration shall initially be borne by the parties equally.

¶25

(viii) The venue of Arbitration shall be at Mumbai.

¶26

(ix)In view of this order, the above Arbitration Application is disposed of.

¶27

( S.J.KATHAWALLA, J. )

¶28

2/2

¶29

ssp

Interglobe Technologies Pvt.Ltd v. the National Insurance Co.Ltd

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Interglobe Technologies Pvt.Ltd v. the National Insurance Co.Ltd

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

Daiwat C. Jhaveri and Advaita C. Jhaveri Vs Aakankssha Infrastructure and 2 Ors.

Tata Capital Financial Services Ltd. Vs Shahid Infra Group and Anr.

Tata Capital Financial Services Limited Vs Shahid Infra Group and Anr.

Taj Air Limited Vs Danish Salahuddin Sultan

Taj Air Limited Vs Vikram Rishipal Ruhil

Anj Turnkey Projects Pvt. Ltd. Vs Raycon Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.