Disposed

Jordan Dental Care Products Pvt. Ltd., Thr. Its Aut. Sign., Ganpat Kapdi., v. M. R. Chendilnathan.

Bombay HC12 Aug 2021WP/769/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged a District Judge's order staying the execution of an arbitration award without recording reasons. The High Court declined to quash the order but directed the District Judge to dispose of the pending challenge to the award (Section 34 petition) within four months.

What did the court decide?

The High Court directed the Principal District Judge to dispose of the challenge to the award expeditiously within four months; the stay order was not quashed but left open for the lower court to deci

Jordan Dental Care Products Pvt. Ltd., Thr. Its Aut. Sign… — Arbitration | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

8 WP 769 of 2019.doc

¶2

Jose

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO.769 OF 2019

¶4

M/S Jordan Dental Care Products Pvt Ltd now known as M/S SCHIFFERAND MENEZES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 And having its registered office at C.M.M Building, Rue De Orem, Panaji Goa Through its Authorised Signatory Shri Ganpat Kapdi son of Ratnakar Kapdi, Aged 42 years, Indian National, Resident of 179/1, Behind St. Ann's Blooming Buds Schools, Sirsaim, Bardez Goa. ... Petitioner. Versus

¶5

M. R. CHENDILNATHAN SOLE PROPRIETOR OF M/S RAJA AGENCY Plot No.253, Main Road, Nehru Nagar Industrial Complex, Old Mahabalipuram Road, Kottivakkam, Chennai Now having office at Vijay Raja Apex, Plot No. 22, 2^nd Street, Kamaraj Nagar, Chemencherray, Chennai 600 119. ... Respondent.

¶6

Mr. S. M. Singbal, Advocate for the Petitioner .

¶7

Ms. Mehandi Desai, Advocate holding for Mr. Hrudaynath Shirodkar, Advocate for the Respondent .

¶8

Page 1 of 5 12th August 2021

¶9

8 WP 769 of 2019.doc

¶10

Coram: M.S. SONAK, J.

¶11

Date: 12^th August 2021.

¶12

: ORAL JUDGMENT

¶13

1.Heard Mr. Singbal for the Petitioner and Ms. Mehandi Desai
holding for Mr. Hrudaynath Shirodkar for the Respondent.

¶14

2.Rule. The rule is made returnable forthwith at the request and with
the consent of learned Counsel for the parties.

¶15

3.The challenge in this petition is to the order dated 28.06.2019
made by the Principal District Judge granting a stay to the execution of
award dated 26.10.2008 pending the disposal of Arbitration Petition
No.6/2018.

¶16

4.Mr. Singbal, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that
though, in terms of section 36(3), the Principal District Judge had the
powers to stay the execution of the award, such powers have to be
exercised for reasons to be recorded in writing. He submits that the
proviso to section 36(3) also provides that while considering an
application for grant of stay of an arbitration award for payment of
money, the Court must have due regard to the provisions for grant of stay
of a money decree under the provisions of Civil Procedure Code. Mr.
Singbal submits that there are no reasons in the impugned order dated
28.06.2019 and the stay has been granted subject only to a deposit of 25
percent of the awarded amount. He, therefore, submits that the
impugned order warrants interference.

¶17

Page 2 of 5

¶18

12th August 2021

¶19

8 WP 769 of 2019.doc

¶20

5.Ms. Mehendi Dessai defends the impugned order based on the
reasons contended therein. She submits that the impugned order was
made on 28.06.2019 and therefore, may not be interfered with at this
stage, particularly because by now the arbitration application under
section 34 can itself be disposed of finally.

¶21

6.On perusal of the impugned order, there is some justification in
the grievance made by Mr. Singbal. The Principal District Judge has
merely quoted the provisions of sections 34 and 36 and thereafter
disposed of the application for stay by observing the following:-

¶22

“10. The applicant herein is called upon to deposit 25% of the amount awarded by the arbitrator within a period of 30 days failing which the applicant shall not be permitted to contest the objections filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

¶23

I therefore pass the following order:

¶24

Application for Stay is allowed.

¶25

Execution of Award dated 26.10.2008 in Arbitration Case
No.11.2008 is hereby stayed.

¶26

7.There are no reasons recorded. Therefore, a case has been made out
to set aside the impugned order dated 28.06.2019 and remand the matter
as proposed by Mr. Singbal. However, as submitted by Ms. Dessai, at this
stage the interest of justice will be better met if directions are issued to the
Principal District Judge to dispose of Arbitration Petition No.6/2018
expeditiously. In the peculiar facts of the present case, this is a better

¶27

Page 3 of 5

¶28

12th August 2021

¶29

8 WP 769 of 2019.doc

¶30

option to follow as otherwise, the matter will have to be remanded to the
District Court to reconsider the application for stay and much time will
be spent in deciding this application for stay itself. There is bound to be
overlapping of arguments. The time spent on deciding the application for
stay can as well be spent on disposing of the Arbitration Petition
No.6/2018 finally.

¶31

8.Therefore, in the peculiar facts of the present case, and even
though, there is merit in the submission of Mr. Singbal, the impugned
order is not interfered with. Instead, the learned Principal District Judge
is directed to dispose of Arbitration and Conciliation Petition No.6/2018
on its own merits and in accord with law as expeditiously as possible and
in any case within four months from today. The learned Counsel for the
parties assure this Court that they will cooperate with the learned
Principal District Judge in disposing of the Arbitration and Conciliation
Petition No.6/2018. In particular, Ms. Dessai submits that the
Respondent herein will not seek any unnecessary adjournment and will
cooperate in the disposal of the application under section 34(2) of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

¶32

9.In case the learned Principal District Judge dismisses the
Respondent's application under section 34 of the said Act, then, the
Principal District Judge to consider requiring the Respondent herein to
deposit the balance of the awarded amount within a specified period.

¶33

Page 4 of 5 12th August 2021

¶34

8 WP 769 of 2019.doc

¶35

10.It is made clear that this Court has not examined the rival
contentions of the parties on merits and therefore, all contentions of all
parties on merits are left open to be decided by the learned Principal
District Judge.

¶36

11.The parties are to now appear before the learned Principal District
Judge taking up Arbitration and Conciliation Petition No.6/2018 on
23.08.2021 and file an authenticated copy of this order.

¶37

12.The rule in this petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. All
concerned to act on an authenticated copy of this order.

¶38

M.S. SONAK, J.

¶39

Page 5 of 5 12th August 2021

Jordan Dental Care Products Pvt. Ltd., Thr. Its Aut. Sign., Ganpat Kapdi., v. M. R. Chendilnathan.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jordan Dental Care Products Pvt. Ltd., Thr. Its Aut. Sign., Ganpat Kapdi., v. M. R. Chendilnathan.

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

Kanaka Dhirendra Thakker Vs Suneet Lalgulab Chandavani

Leopoldina Erodina Dmello Vs Cedric William Francis Pinto

Sulochana Chandrakant Harmalkar and 8 Ors. Vs Bikaji Sagun Harmalkar and 6 Ors.

Pritesh v. Naik. Vs State of Goa through the Chief Secretary and 2 Ors.

Sahadev Sawal. Vs State of Goa through the Chief Secretary and 2 Ors.

Santosh K. Gawas., Head Constable B.No. 3424 Spcr., Vs State of Goa, through the Chief Secretary and 2 Ors.