Allowed

Deepdharshan Builders Pvt. Ltd. v. Saroj Widow of Satish Sunderrao Trasikar and 3 0RS

Bombay HC28 Jun 2022ARBP/253/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In arbitration petition No. 253 of 2022, the High Court allowed the petitioner's prayer to issue a witness summons under Section 27 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, relying on the jurisdiction established in Dilip s/o. Bhavanji Shah v/s. Errol Moraes to facilitate evidence collection by the arbitral tribunal.

What did the court decide?

Witness summons issued to Mr. Arvind Rathod, Advocate, to remain present before the arbitral tribunal on 08 July, 2022 at 04.30 p.m.

Deepdharshan Builders Pvt. Ltd. Vs Saroj Widow of Satish… — Arbitration | Bombay HC (2022)

¶1

Digitally signed PRAJAKTASAGAR by PRAJAKTASAGAR VARTAKDate: VARTAK 2022.06.29 10:47:04 +0530

¶2

¶3

6-arbp 253-22

¶4

Prajakta Vartak

¶5

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

¶6

ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 253 OF 2022

¶7

Deepdharshan Builders Pvt. Ltd...Petitioner

¶8

Vs.
Saroj wd/o. Satish Sunderrao Trasikar & Ors...Respondents

¶9

Mr. Deepak Shukla i/b. M/s. Vinod Mistry & Co. for Petitioner.
Mr. U. J. Makhija with Ms. Twinkle Gadhiya i/b. M/s. L. C. Tolat & Co.
for Respondents.

¶10

CORAM :G.S. KULKARNI, J.
DATE :JUNE 28, 2022.

¶11

P.C.:

¶12

1. This is a petition filed under Section 27 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, “the Act”) whereby the petitioner has prayed for the following prayer:-

¶13

“(a) This Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue witness summons to Mr. Arvind Rathod, Advocate and Solicitor of Arvind Rathod and Co. having his office at 137-139 Modi Street, Jessia House, 7A, 3^rd Floor, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001 in order to record his evidence.”

¶14

2.The learned arbitrator has passed an order dated 07 March, 2022
on an application as filed by the petitioner under Section 27 of the Act
wherein a prayer was made to permit the petitioner to seek assistance of
this Court to examine such witness. The learned arbitrator has recorded
detailed reasons as to why he intends to permit such witness to be
examined by the petitioner/claimant.

¶15

3. I have perused the order passed by the learned arbitrator. Considering the scope of jurisdiction of this Court under Section 27 of the Act and more particularly as held by this Court in case of Dilip s/o.

¶16

¶17

6-arbp 253-22

¶18

Bhavanji Shah v/s. Errol Moraes in Arbitration Petition (L.) No. 722 of
2022, such provision merely enables the parties to take assistance of the
Court for taking evidence and does not confer any adjudicatory powers.
The petition is accordingly required to be allowed. It is accordingly
allowed in terms of prayer clause (a).

¶19

4.Office is directed to accordingly issue a witness summons to Mr.
Arvind Rathod, Advocate and Solicitor from Arvind Rathod and Co.
directing him to remain present before the arbitral tribunal on 08 July,
2022 at 04.30 p.m. at the following address:-

¶20

“Room No.66, 5th Floor, Ali Chamber, Fort, Mumbai-400 023.

¶21

5.The advocate for the petitioner to provide to the registry the
complete address of the witness.

¶22

6. Needless to observe that all contentions of the respondents, including the right of the respondents to cross-examine such witness, are expressly kept open.

¶23

7. Disposed of in the above terms. No costs.

Deepdharshan Builders Pvt. Ltd. v. Saroj Widow of Satish Sunderrao Trasikar and 3 0RS

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deepdharshan Builders Pvt. Ltd. v. Saroj Widow of Satish Sunderrao Trasikar and 3 0RS

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

Rustom Meherdaad Battliwala Vs Armozee Rustom Battliwala

A. K. Roy Vs Union of India

Container Rail Road Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs Maple Logistics Pvt. Ltd. and 4 Ors.

Dinesh Keshavji Patel Vs K.D. Lite Developers Pvt.Ltd. and 4 Ors.

Abhay Kumar Bind Vs Silver Homes and 2 Ors.

Rajesh K Shah Vs Across Films LLP and 6 Ors.