Allowed

Siddhitech Developers v. Indira Radia and 2 Ors.

Bombay HC16 Jul 2018NMA/599/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court clarified that an ad-interim order under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act does not affect the merits of a pending Section 34 petition. The court disposed of the appeal and notice of motion without expressing an opinion on the appellant's request for clarification.

What did the court decide?

Appeal and Notice of Motion disposed of; appellant directed to seek appropriate remedy.

Siddhitech Developers Vs Indira Radia and 2 Ors. — Arbitration | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

12-appl 300-18@nmal 649-18

¶3

psv

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL (LODGING) NO.300 OF 2018

¶5

¶6

ARBITRATION PETITION (L.) NO.618 OF 2018 WITH NOTICE OF MOTION (L.) NO.649 OF 2018

¶7

Siddhitech Developers ...Appellant Vs. Indira Radia & Ors. ...Respondents -----

¶8

Mr.S.C. Naidu with Ms.Sudeshna Guha Roy and Mr.Pritrish Shetty i/b. Vidhii Partners for Appellant.

¶9

Mr.Kevic Setalwad, Senior Advocate, with Ms.Manorama Mohanty and Ms.Ruchi Doshi i/b. M/s.S.K. Srivastav & Co. for Respondent Nos.1 and 2.

¶10

CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL AND G.S. KULKARNI, JJ. DATE : 16^th JULY 2018

¶11

P.C.:

¶12

Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the impugned order dated 29^th June, 2018 passed by the learned Single Judge.

¶13

It is admitted that petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, “the Act”) is pending before the Court. The impugned order is passed on the petition filed under Section 9 of the Act. The impugned order is an ad-interim order.

¶14

2 12-appl 300-18@nmal 649-18

¶15

We clarify that ad-interim order shall not affect the merits of petition filed under Section 34 of the Act.

¶16

The learned Counsel Mr.Naidu appearing for the appellant submits that he is yet to be heard as regards to observations made in paragraph 4 of the impugned order. The said statement is objected to by the learned Counsel Mr.Setalwad appearing for the respondent Nos.1 and 2.

¶17

The learned Counsel Mr.Naidu, at this stage, submits that he would seek clarification/modification of the impugned order. We do not express any opinion on the same. The learned Counsel for the appellant may seek appropriate remedy as permissible under law.

¶18

Appeal stands disposed of accordingly.

¶19

In view of disposal of appeal, nothing survives in the notice of motion (l.) No.649 of 2018. It is accordingly disposed of.

¶20

[G.S. KULKARNI, J.]

¶21

[NARESH H. PATIL, J.]

Siddhitech Developers v. Indira Radia and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Siddhitech Developers v. Indira Radia and 2 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

Kma Workers and Staff Union Vs the Official Liquidator High Court Bombay and 3 Ors. and M Prakash and 2 Ors. (Applicants)

Futura Polyesters Ltd. Vs Daewoo International Corporation Ltd.

Futura Polyesters Ltd. Vs Daewoo International Corporation Ltd.

Kamlesh Patel Vs the State of Maharashtra and 6 Ors.

Loil Overseas Foods Limited and 2 Ors. Vs Modern India Ltd. and 41 Ors.

Siddhitech Developers Vs Indira Radia and 2 Ors.