Dismissed

Mrs. Radhika Govind Chavan and Another v. M/S. Shriram City Union Finance Ltd, Thr. Its General Poa.Mrs. Smita Sunil Shirkar

Bombay HC18 Nov 2022ARP/174/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An arbitration petition filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was dismissed for being wholly misconceived. The petitioners had admitted receiving a final award in an earlier arbitration proceeding and sought relief that contradicted the facts admitted.

What did the court decide?

None. The petition filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was dismissed as wholly misconceived.

Mrs. Radhika Govind Chavan and Another Vs M/S. Shriram City Union… — Arbitration | Bombay HC (2022)

¶1

15_ARP174_22.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

ARBITRATION PETITION NO.174 OF 2022

¶5

Radhika Govind Chavan and another … Petitioners Vs.

¶6

M/s. Shriram City Union Finance Limited through its General POA Smita Sunil Shirkar … Respondent

¶7

Mr. Yogesh Pande for Petitioners.

¶8

Mr. Devendra V. Nawadkar i/b. Dr. Saikumar Pathrudu for Respondent.

¶9

CORAM : MANISH PITALE, J. DATE : NOVEMBER 18, 2022

¶10

P.C. :

¶11

. Heard Mr. Yogesh Pande, learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶12

This petition is styled as a petition filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

¶13

The facts stated in the petition reveal that there was an arbitration proceeding undertaken before a sole arbitrator in the context of a loan agreement executed between the petitioners and the respondent. The arbitrator pronounced the award on 07.12.2019 and the petitioners stated that they received a copy of the final award on 18.02.2020. It is then stated that a notice dated 16.03.2020 is issued on behalf of the petitioners to the respondent claiming to be a notice under Section 34 of the aforesaid Act.

¶14

Whereafter, the present petition came to be filed on 17.03.2022 under Section 9 of the aforesaid Act. A perusal of the prayer clauses shows that the petitioner is seeking the relief of stay of operation of the award and also a direction to the respondent company not to act on the basis of the said award till conclusion of arbitral proceedings between the parties.

¶15

1/2

¶16

15_ARP174_22.doc

¶17

It is strange when on one hand, the petitioners have themselves stated that the arbitration proceedings culminated in the award dated 07.12.2019, how can the petitioners claim the nature of reliefs as stated in the prayer clauses of the present petition.

¶18

The present petition filed under Section 9 of the aforesaid Act is wholly misconceived and accordingly it is dismissed.

¶19

Needless to say, the petitioners can take steps as available in law in the context of the arbitration award dated 07.12.2019.

¶20

(MANISH PITALE, J.)

¶21

Minal Parab

¶22

2/2

Mrs. Radhika Govind Chavan and Another v. M/S. Shriram City Union Finance Ltd, Thr. Its General Poa.Mrs. Smita Sunil Shirkar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs. Radhika Govind Chavan and Another v. M/S. Shriram City Union Finance Ltd, Thr. Its General Poa.Mrs. Smita Sunil Shirkar

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

Mrs. Vijaya Dinesh Kunden Thr. Poa.Mr. Dinesh Kunden Vs Mrs. Geeta Jaydeep Kher

M/S. United Sales Corporation Thr. Its Partners Mr.Badri R. Mander and Another Vs Union of India and Others

M/S. United Sales Corporation Thr. Partners Mr. Badri R. Mander and Another Vs Union of India

Mitchell Drilling International Pty Ltd. Vs Nayara Energy Ltd. Formerly Known as Essar Oil Ltd.

Sharafat Hussain Noormohamad Khan Vs Rehmat Ali Sharafat Hussain Khan (Minor)

Mr. Shahanawaz Suleman Ghavane Vs M/S. Plus Idea Engineerin Corporation