Allowed

Matrukrupa Enterprises, Thr. Its Partner Ramchandra Lalmani Tiwari v. M/S. Kalyani Construction Thr. Its Partner Shailendra M. Singh

Bombay HC14 Dec 2022ARP/62/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this arbitration petition, the petitioner sought appointment of a substituted arbitrator after the incumbent informed the court of his inability to proceed due to serious ailments. The High Court, noting the parties' agreement on a suitable candidate, appointed Mr. Krishnaprasad R. Warrier as the sole arbitrator.

What did the court decide?

Appointment of Mr. Krishnaprasad R. Warrier as the sole arbitrator and directions for submission of consent form.

Matrukrupa Enterprises, Thr. Its Partner Ramchandra Lalmani… — Arbitration | Bombay HC (2022)

¶1

12_ARP62_22.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

ARBITRATION PETITION NO.62 OF 2022

¶5

Matrukrupa Enterprises, through its Partner Ramchandra Lalmani Tiwari … Petitioner Vs. Kalyani Construction through its Partner Shailendra M. Singh … Respondent

¶6

Mr. B. K. Bali i/b. Bali Associate for Petitioner. Mr. Suresh Dubey for Respondent.

¶7

CORAM : MANISH PITALE, J. DATE : DECEMBER 14, 2022

¶8

P.C. :

¶9

. By this petition filed under Sections 14 and 15 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the petitioner is seeking appointment of substituted arbitrator in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case.

¶10

A supplementary development agreement was executed between the parties. In the said agreement, both the parties inserted a clause for resolution of disputes pertaining to damages and compensation and a specific person was named as the arbitrator. It appears that in view of the disputes that arose between the parties, the arbitration proceedings were initiated before the named arbitrator, but by letter dated 01.04.2022, the learned arbitrator communicated his inability to continue with the proceedings for the reasons stated in the said letter, including serious ailments suffered by the learned arbitrator.

¶11

It is in this backdrop that the petitioner has approached this Court. The respondent is represented by learned counsel.

¶12

1/2

¶13

12_ARP62_22.doc

¶14

This Court has heard the rival parties. In the light of the arbitration clause in the said agreement and the inability expressed by the learned arbitrator appointed earlier, this is a fit case for allowing the present petition.

¶15

Learned counsel for the rival parties, on instructions, agree for appointment of the arbitrator at Thane for resolution of the disputes.

¶16

Accordingly, Mr. Krishnaprasad R. Warrier, a retired District Judge available at Thane is appointed as the sole arbitrator. The contact details of the learned arbitrator are as follows:-

¶17

Mr. Krishnaprasad R. Warrier Flat No.606, Rosabella, Opposite Suraj Water Park, Ghodbunder Road, Thane (West) - 400 615. Email: [email protected]

¶18

The parties undertake to inform the learned Arbitrator about the order passed today.

¶19

Learned Arbitrator is requested to submit his consent and disclosure statement in terms of Sections 11(8) read with 12(1) of the aforesaid Act within four weeks to the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court.

¶20

The fees of the learned Arbitrator shall be fixed in terms of the Fourth Schedule to the aforesaid Act.

¶21

All questions are kept open.

¶22

Petition stands disposed of.

¶23

(MANISH PITALE, J.)

¶24

Minal Parab

¶25

2/2

Matrukrupa Enterprises, Thr. Its Partner Ramchandra Lalmani Tiwari v. M/S. Kalyani Construction Thr. Its Partner Shailendra M. Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Matrukrupa Enterprises, Thr. Its Partner Ramchandra Lalmani Tiwari v. M/S. Kalyani Construction Thr. Its Partner Shailendra M. Singh

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

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

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

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.

Hindustan Unilever Limited Vs Utttam Gorai

Mr. Sambhaji Popatrao Jagtap, Proprietor of M/S. Jagtap Associates Vs Bank of Maharashtra and Anr.