Disposed

Endo Lighting Accessories (India) Private Limited Thr.Its Mr. Toshiyuki Shindo v. Paradigm Lighting Solutions Private Limited

Bombay HC13 Dec 2022ARP/152/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, the Court appointed Smt. Dr. Justice Shalini Phansalkar-Joshi as the sole arbitrator after parties failed to agree on appointment in a dispute arising from an MOU.

What did the court decide?

Appointment made of Smt. Dr. Justice Shalini Phansalkar-Joshi as the Arbitrator.

Endo Lighting Accessories (India) Private Limited Thr.Its Mr… — Arbitration | Bombay HC (2022)

¶1

21.ARP.152.2021.doc

¶2

SHRIKANT SHRINIVAS MALANI

¶3

Digitally signed by SHRIKANT SHRINIVAS MALANI Date: 2022.12.15 18:16:32 +0530

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 152 OF 2021

¶6

Endo Lighting Accessories (India) Pvt. Ltd.

¶7

...Petitioner

¶8

Versus

¶9

Paradigm Lighting Solutions Pvt. Ltd. ...Respondent ***

¶10

 Mr. Chirag Dave i/by Legasis Partners, for Petitioner.  Mr. Akshay Karlekar i/by Mr. Sanjay Gangal for Respondent. ***

¶11

CORAM : MANISH PITALE, J DATE : 13^TH DECEMBER, 2022.

¶12

P. C. :

¶13

This is a petition filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, for appointment of an Arbitrator as the agreed procedure for appointment of Arbitrator between the parties, failed in appointment of Arbitrator.

¶14

The Petitioner has relied upon Arbitration Clause in a Memorandum of Understanding dated 16^th May, 2017, executed between the parties. The Arbitration clause reads as follows :

¶15

“11. ARBITRATION AND JURISDICTION

¶16

The parties agree that any disputes or differences arising out of or in connection with this MOU or anything done or omitted to be done pursuant therein shall be attempted to be first settled amicably failing which, it shall be referred to arbitration to be conducted in accordance with the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 or any statutory modifications thereof. The venue of arbitration shall be

Page1 of 3

Shrikant

21.ARP.152.2021.doc

Pune, Maharashtra, India. The Courts at Pune, Maharashtra, India shall have exclusive jurisdiction in respect of this MOU or any appeal preferred from Arbitration Award.”

¶21

It appears that dispute arose between the parties, as a consequence of which, the petitioner caused a notice to be issued to the Respondent on 09^th July, 2021, invoking the Arbitration Clause. The Respondent sent a reply disputing the proposed name of the Arbitrator, as a consequence of which, the petitioner was constrained to file present petition.

¶22

This Court has perused the Arbitration Clause and the invocation notice. There appear to be disputes between the parties, which need to be resolved by way of Arbitration. The Arbitration Clause specifies Pune as the place of Arbitration and, therefore, it would be appropriate to appoint an Arbitrator, who is available at Pune.

¶23

Accordingly, Smt. Dr. Justice Shalini Phansalkar-Joshi, a former judge of this Court is appointed as the Arbitrator. The details of the learned Arbitrator are as follows :

¶24

Hon’ble Smt. Dr. Justice Shalini Phansalkar-Joshi, Address at Mumbai : C/o Mridula Bhatkar, 501, Sakte, M.B. Raut Marg, Neal Balmohan Vidya Mandir, Shivaji Park, Dadar (W), Mumbai – 400 025.

Page2 of 3

Shrikant

21.ARP.152.2021.doc

Address at Pune : Bunglow No. 12, Bhagya Chintamani Nagar, Poud Road, Kothrud, Pune – 411038. Mob. No. 9657188676.

¶29

Email : [email protected]

¶30

The parties are directed to immediately inform the learned Arbitrator about the order passed today.

¶31

The learned Arbitrator is requested to communicate her consent and Disclosure Statement as per Section 11(8) r/w Section 12(1) of the said Act, within four seeks to the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court.

¶32

The fees of the Arbitrator shall be as per Schedule IV to the Aforesaid Act.

¶33

9. All questions are kept open.

¶34

The petition stands disposed of.

¶35

(MANISH PITALE, J.)

¶36

Page3 of 3

¶37

Shrikant

Endo Lighting Accessories (India) Private Limited Thr.Its Mr. Toshiyuki Shindo v. Paradigm Lighting Solutions Private Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Endo Lighting Accessories (India) Private Limited Thr.Its Mr. Toshiyuki Shindo v. Paradigm Lighting Solutions Private 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

Builtsum Relators through Munaf Vadgama vs Paradise Construction Co. and 2 Ors.

E Meditek Insurance Limited Vs India First Life Insurance Company

Shalimar Pack Vs Bhavesh Plastic Industries

Sony Music Entertainment India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Kal Radio Limited and Anr.

M/S. O.L.C.I. Engineering India Private Limited Vs Dheeraj Prasad

Jagruti Ketan Sheth the Ex-Director of Giltedge Management Services Limited(in Liqn) vs O.L.R. in Liquidation(Mp) and Giltedge Management Services Ltd.