Allowed

Mr. Nitin Satish Mittal v. Mr. Manoj Vijaykumar Agarwal and Ors.

Bombay HC19 Sept 2019ARA/21/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an arbitration appeal dismissing a District Judge's order that denied interim relief under Section 9. The Court held that Section 17 does not exclude Section 9 jurisdiction and that the arbitrator termination due to unwillingness established the need for immediate interim protection of the partnership firm's assets.

What did the court decide?

Respondents No. 1 and 2 are restrained from transferring, alienating, parting with possession of, or encumbering the assets of the partnership firm M/s. Bharati Developers.

Mr. Nitin Satish Mittal Vs Mr. Manoj Vijaykumar Agarwal and Ors. — Arbitration | Bombay HC (2019)

18-ara-21-19.doc

1/3

pdp

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

ARBITRATION APPEAL NO. 21 OF 2019 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 21 OF 2019

¶6

Mr. Nitin Satish Mittal

.. Appellant

(Org. Applicant)

Vs.

Mr. Manoj Vijaykumar Agarwal & Ors.

¶11

..Respondents

¶12

Mr. Nikhil Wadekar a/w Mr. Hemal V. Ganatra for Appellant. None for the Respondents.

¶13

CORAM: PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, CJ. & SMT. BHARATI DANGRE, J.

¶14

SEPTEMBER 19, 2019. P.C.

¶15

None appears for the Respondents inspite of service being effected. Thus we are constrained to decide the Appeal without the assistance from the side of the Respondents.

¶16

Challenge in the Appeal is to the order dated 12^th July, 2019 passed by the learned District Judge-1, Pune in Civil M.A. No. 380 of 2019.

¶17

2/3

¶18

18-ara-21-19.doc

¶19

The learned District Judge-1, Pune has dismissed Application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 reasoning that since an Arbitrator has been appointed to decide the dispute between the parties, an efficacious remedy under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was available.

¶20

The impugned order overlooks the fact that Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 confers concurrent jurisdiction on a court to grant interim measures pending dispute adjudication before the learned Arbitrator. More fundamental, the impugned order overlooks the fact that on 23^rd March, 2019 i.e. much before the passing of the impugned order, the learned sole Arbitrator Justice S. R. Sathe (Retd.) had expressed his nonwillingness to act as an Arbitrator and thus the mandate of the Arbitrator had terminated as per Section 15(1)(a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

¶21

Thus we dispose of the the Appeal granting interim measure as prayed for requiring Respondent Nos.1 and 2 not to transfer, alienate, part possession with or encumber the assets of the partnership firm named M/s. Bharati Developers for the reason

¶22

3/3

¶23

18-ara-21-19.doc

¶24

the dispute which has to be decided by the Arbitrator concerns dissolution of the said firm on account of death of its partner late Satishkumar Mittal.

¶25

Civil Application No. 21 of 2019 does not survive and is disposed of.

¶26

SMT. BHARATI DANGRE, J. CHIEF JUSTICE

Mr. Nitin Satish Mittal v. Mr. Manoj Vijaykumar Agarwal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Nitin Satish Mittal v. Mr. Manoj Vijaykumar Agarwal and 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

Tarik Abdul Karim Parveen @ Tariq Parveen Vs the State of Maharashtra

Govind Shankar Bhagat Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Rohit Manohar Joshi and Anr. Vs Thane Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Mr. Shrimant S. Bansode Vs the Commissioner, Kalyan Dombivali Municipal Corp. and Ors.

Shree Vitthal Ramchandra Sargar Vs State of Maharashtra through the Secretary and Ors.

Baban Bhaskar Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra