Allowed

Rishi Kawatra v. Rishi Sekhri

Bombay HC7 Oct 2021AAR/8/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay at Goa allowed an application to appoint an arbitrator under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The court held that pendency of a Section 138 NI Act case does not preclude arbitration as they address different scopes of relief, appointing Judge Jagannath J. Mulgaonkar as the arbitrator.

What did the court decide?

Appointed Mr. Jagannath J. Mulgaonkar as an arbitrator to adjudicate into the disputes between the parties.

Rishi Kawatra Vs Rishi Sekhri — Arbitration | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

2-AAR-8-2021.DOC

¶2

Santosh

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

¶4

APPLN. FOR APPOINTMENT OF ARBITRATOR NO.8/2021

RISHI KAWATRA

...APPLICANT

Versus

RISHI SEKHRI

…RESPONDENT

Mr. Raunaq Rao, Advocate for the Applicant .

¶11

Mr. Gideon Noronha, Advocate for the Respondent.

¶12

CORAM: M. S. SONAK, J. DATED: 7^th October 2021

¶13

ORAL ORDER :

¶14

1. Heard Mr. Raunaq Rao for the applicant and Mr. Gideon Noronha for the respondent.

¶15

2. This is an application for appointment of an arbitrator in terms of the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (said Act).

¶16

3. The parties had entered into an agreement dated 3^rd December, 2017 and clause 5 of this agreement provides for

¶17

Page 1 of 5 7th October 2021

¶18

2-AAR-8-2021.DOC

¶19

resolution of disputes through arbitration. This clause 5, reads as
follows :

¶20

“5. That it is hereby agreed that all disputes which may
arise between the parties to this agreement and about
performance of these presents or concerning any act or
commission of other party or the dispute or by any of
them or in relation to any matter whatsoever concerning
this Agreement, shall be referred to arbitration in
accordance with the provision of the Indian Arbitration
Act. 1996.”

¶21

4. The material on record, indicates that disputes have arisen between the parties in context of the aforesaid agreement. The applicant caused a notice dated 22/3/2021 to be served upon the respondent. Despite the receipt of the notice, the respondent did not concur in appointment of any arbitrator. Hence, the present application.

¶22

5. Mr. Noronha, the learned Counsel for the respondent submits that the claim of the applicant is for money. He submits that the applicant has already instituted proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 as is pleaded in paragraph 4 of the application. He submits that these proceedings are pending and ultimately, these proceedings are for recovery of the money which the applicant now claims by adjudication before the arbitrator.

¶23

Page 2 of 5 7th October 2021

¶24

2-AAR-8-2021.DOC

¶25

6. Mr. Noronha relies on M/s. Sri Krishna Agencies vs. State of A.P. & anr . - Criminal Appeal No.1792 of 2008 decided on 11/11/2008 to contend that there can be no simultaneous or parallel proceedings based on same cause of action. He submits that that there can be no bar to the simultaneous continuance of civil and criminal proceedings, if they arise from two separate causes of action.

¶26

7. According to me, the scope of criminal proceedings and the civil proceedings, is entirely different. The proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act cannot, strictly speaking, be regarded as proceedings for recovery of money simpliciter. In any case, having regard to the provisions of the said Act and the law on the subject, this cannot be a ground to resist from appointment of an arbitrator. Once, the arbitrator is appointed, no doubt, the respondent will be at liberty to raise all permissible defences, including the defence that is now raised before me. My observations on the defence, are only prima facie and the same need not influence the arbitrator while adjudicating upon the disputes which have arisen between the parties.

¶27

8. The ruling in M/s. Sri Krishna Agencies (supra), relied upon by Mr. Noronha is quite distinguishable because, that was a matter where the proceedings under the Negotiable Instruments

¶28

Page 3 of 5 7th October 2021

¶29

2-AAR-8-2021.DOC

¶30

Act, were sought to be quashed because the complainant had
already resorted to arbitration. The Hon'ble Supreme Court
referred to its earlier ruling in Trisuns Chemical Industry vs.
Rajesh Agarwal and others – (1999) 8 SCC 686 to observe that
arbitration is a remedy for affording reliefs to the party affected by
breach of the agreement, but the arbitrator cannot conduct a trial
of any act which amounted to an offence albeit the same act may
be connected with the discharge of any function under the
agreement. Therefore, based on the ruling in M/s. Sri Krishna
Agencies (supra), the respondent cannot resist even the
appointment of the arbitrator to adjudicate into the civil disputes
that have arisen between the parties.

¶31

9. Accordingly, it is proposed to appoint Mr. Jagannath J. Mulgaonkar, Advocate of this Court as an arbitrator in the matter. Mr. Mulgaonkar is present in the Court and after he is apprised of the status of the parties, makes a statement that he has no difficulty in accepting nomination as an arbitrator. Mr. Mulgaonkar states that the statement of disclosure will be filed in the course of the day.

¶32

10. Accordingly, this application is disposed of by appointing Mr. Jagannath J. Mulgaonkar as an arbitrator to adjudicate into the disputes which have arisen between the parties. All

¶33

Page 4 of 5 7th October 2021

¶34

2-AAR-8-2021.DOC

¶35

contentions of all parties on merits of the disputes, are expressly
kept open. The fees of the learned Arbitrator will abide by the
provisions of the said Act and the rules and regulations that may
be applicable.

¶36

11. This application is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. There shall be no order as to costs. All concerned to act on an authenticated copy of this order.

¶37

M. S. SONAK, J.

¶38

SANTOSH S MHAMAL Digitally signed by SANTOSH S MHAMAL Date: 2021.10.08 10:12:44 +05'30'

¶39

Page 5 of 5 7th October 2021

Rishi Kawatra v. Rishi Sekhri

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rishi Kawatra v. Rishi Sekhri

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bappa Dharma Falari Vs Shriram Dharma Falari and Anr.

State of Goa through Chief Secretary Vs M/S. Nestle India Limited, through Shri. M.K.S.Saraon, Accounts Manager

Balkrishna Insulkar and Anr., Vs Chitra Badrinarayan Alias B. Chitra and 16 Ors.

Ocean 7 Hotels and Resorts, a Prop Concern of Nimpha Rodrigues Vs Mypreferred Transformation and Hospitality Pvt. Ltd.

Manuel Fernandes and Anr. Vs Inancio Piedade Fernandes and 24 Ors.

Escolastica Braganza and Anr., Vs Smt. Helena Braganza