Disposed

Magic Motors a Partnership Firm Thr. Its Nishatn Prakashchandra Bhutada and Ors. v. Tata Capital Financial Services Limited

Bombay HC2 Apr 2019ARP/107/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an arbitration petition, the Bombay High Court passes an order by consent appointing a sole arbitrator to decide disputes arising from a Facility Agreement. The venue is set to Mumbai with directions for final award within six months.

What did the court decide?

Appointed Mr. Rohan Rajadhyaksh as sole arbitrator; fixed venue at Mumbai; directed final award within six months; costs borne equally.

Magic Motors a Partnership Firm Thr. Its Nishatn Prakashchandra… — Arbitration | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

ssp 932 arp 107 of 2018.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

ARBITRATION PETITION NO.107 OF 2018

¶4

Magic Motors and Ors.

¶5

…Petitioners

¶6

versus

¶7

Tata Capital Financial Services Ltd.

¶8

…
Respondent

¶9

Mr. Avinash H. Fatangare, for Petitioner.

¶10

Mr. Biswadeep Chakravarty with Ms. Manasi Kalvit I/by Mr. Mahernosh J.
Humranwala, for Respondent.

¶11

CORAM: S.J. KATHAWALLA, J.

¶12

DATE: 2nd APRIL, 2019

¶13

P.C.:

¶14

1.Heard the learned Advocates appearing for the parties. The learned
Advocate for the Respondent has taken instructions from Mr. Pralhad Kale and Ms.
Leena Desai, officials of the Respondent Company and thereafter, the following order
is passed by consent :

¶15

(i)Mr. Rohan Rajadhyaksh, Advocate is appointed as the sole Arbitrator to
decide the disputes between the parties arising out of the Facility Agreement dated
dated 30th November, 2016 along with the Letters of Guarantee dated 6th December,

¶16

2016.

¶17

(ii)The disclosure of Mr. Rohan Rajadhyaksh, Advocate under Section 11

¶18

(8) read with Section 12 (1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 as amended

¶19

by the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 (3 of 2016) is taken on

¶20

1/2

¶21

ssp 932 arp 107 of 2018.doc

¶22

record.

¶23

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

¶24

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

¶25

(v) The parties and/or their Advocates shall appear before the learned

¶26

Arbitrator in his chambers, on 5th April, 2019 at 5.00 p.m. and obtain necessary

¶27

directions.

¶28

(vi)The learned Arbitrator shall proceed with the Arbitration Proceedings

¶29

from where the earlier Arbitrator has stopped.

¶30

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

¶31

(viii) The learned Arbitrator shall not grant adjournments to the parties

¶32

unless absolutely necessary.

¶33

(ix)The learned Arbitrator shall endeavour to pass his final Award within a

¶34

period of six months from the date of this order.

¶35

(x) The above Arbitration Petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶36

( S.J.KATHAWALLA, J. )

¶37

2/2

Magic Motors a Partnership Firm Thr. Its Nishatn Prakashchandra Bhutada and Ors. v. Tata Capital Financial Services Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Magic Motors a Partnership Firm Thr. Its Nishatn Prakashchandra Bhutada and Ors. v. Tata Capital Financial Services Limited

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

Reliance India Power Fund Vs Su-Kam Power Systems Ltd. and 3 Ors.

Siddhi Rent a Car Pvt. Ltd. and 2 Ors. Vs Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Ltd.

M/S. Gurukripa Basics Vs Greenscape Developers Pvt. Ltd.

Kanchan Motors Thr. Its Prop. Nishant Bhutada (Huf) and Anr. Vs Tata Capital Financial Services Limited

Smt. Suvarna Anil Ghodke and Anr. Vs Mr. Jagannath Balaji Ghodke and Ors.

Prakashrao Shamrao Patil, Thr. Its Prop. Prakashrao Shamrao Patil Vs Office of General Manager, Telecom District