Allowed

Gaurang Doshi and 2 Ors. v. Scorg Iternational Consulting Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.

Bombay HC10 Jul 2019COMAP/393/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a commercial appeal against a contempt order, the High Court accepted an oral undertaking by the appellants to deposit the awarded amount within two months. The court suspended the imprisonment sentence and the fine, permitting the appellants to comply and allowing the respondent to withdraw the deposited amount without security.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order suspended; appellants permitted to deposit ₹1,15,11,111 within two months; respondent allowed to withdraw ₹2,000 fine without security.

Gaurang Doshi and 2 Ors. Vs Scorg… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

(5) Comapl 194-19

¶2

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

¶3

Amk

¶4

COMMERCIAL APPEAL (L) NO. 194 OF 2019

¶5

¶6

CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 11 OF 2017 IN

¶7

COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 360 OF 2017

¶8

M/s. Gaurang Doshi & Ors. .. Appellants Vs.

¶9

M/s. Scorg International Consulting Pvt. Ltd. .. Respondent

¶10

Mr. Kevic Setelwad, Sr. Advocate a/w. Mr. Sagar Ghogre i/b Govind Solanke for the Appellants.

¶11

Dr. Abhinav Chandrachud a/w. Ms. Krishna Kedia, Ms. Raksha Thakkar, Ms. Trisha mehta i/b Parinam Law Associates for the Respondent.

¶12

CORAM : PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, C.J. & N. M. JAMDAR, J. DATE : 10th JULY, 2019.

¶13

P. C. :

¶14

The challenge is to an order dated 25.10.2018 holding the 2^nd Appellant guilty of contempt and as a result imposing sentence to undergo simple imprisonment for six months in civil prison for willfully breaching the order dated 20.06.2017 clarified on 07.03.2019. The 3^rd Appellant, who is mother of 2^nd Appellant, has been directed to pay fine in a sum of 2,000/-.₹ 2,000/-.

¶15

We propose not to note the background facts which led to the

¶16

1/3

¶17

(5) Comapl 194-19

¶18

passing of the impugned order except that the Respondent and 1^st and 2^nd Appellants appear to have acted fairly informally.

¶19

In proceeding initiated by the Respondent under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in which the 1^st and 2^nd Appellants were impleaded as Respondent Nos.1 and 2 an order was passed directing 1,25,11,111/- to be deposited in this Court.₹ 2,000/-.

¶20

The order was breached and contempt proceedings were initiated in which the 2^nd Appellant has been convicted and sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six months.

¶21

Learned Counsel for the 1^st and 2^nd Appellants tenders an unqualified apology, which we accept, because the apology tendered is with an undertaking by the 2^nd Appellant that he would deposit ₹ 2,000/-. 1,15,11,111/- with this Court. The reason being that 10,00,000/-₹ 2,000/-. have been directly paid to the Respondent by Appellant No.2.

¶22

We take on record the undertaking given orally to us by the learned Senior Counsel on instruction from the learned Counsel on record who in turn has been instructed by Appellant No.2 to given the undertaking. The undertaking is that 1,15,11,111/- shall be deposited₹ 2,000/-. by either of the Appellants in this Court within two months from today.

¶23

Binding the Appellants to the undertaking and directing the suspension of the impugned order for a period of two months; clarifying

¶24

2/3

¶25

(5) Comapl 194-19

¶26

that upon default the impugned order would be treated as final and the Appeal there-against being rejected shall become executable, the instant Appeal is disposed of permitting the Appellants to comply with their undertaking. We permit the Respondent to withdraw the amount of ₹ 2,000/-. 1,15,11,111/- deposited by the Appellants without furnishing any security. Needless to state the amount would be adjusted in execution proceedings which are pending concerning the Award.

¶27

[N. M. JAMDAR, J.]

¶28

[CHIEF JUSTICE]

¶29

3/3

Gaurang Doshi and 2 Ors. v. Scorg Iternational Consulting Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gaurang Doshi and 2 Ors. v. Scorg Iternational Consulting Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.

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

Mumbai and Suburban Teachers Sangh Vs B.M.C.and Ors.

Shri.Chereshwar Mitra Mandal Anr. Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra and 7 Ors.

Shri. Lalasaheb Nanasaheb Thorat Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Nisar Properties Pvt. Ltd. Vs Jogeshwari Friends Co-Operative Housing Soc Ltd. and 2 Ors.

Zoru Darayus Bhathena Vs Tree Authority, Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and 5 Ors.

Gaurang Doshi and 2 Ors. Vs Scorg Iternational Consulting Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.