Dismissed

Rajnish Pannalal Pandey v. Indostar Capital Finance Ltd. and Anr.

Bombay HC11 Mar 2022WP/2545/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Three civil writ petitions challenging orders u/s 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 passed by Mohali Court. The petitioner sought to invoke Bombay Court's jurisdiction citing a cause of action in Mumbai. The single-judge bench held jurisdiction was not made out.

What did the court decide?

All three petitions were dismissed as no case for exercising jurisdiction was made out.

Rajnish Pannalal Pandey Vs Indostar Capital Finance Ltd. and Anr. — Arbitration | Bombay HC (2022)

¶1

IRESH Digitally signed by IRESH SIDDHARAM SIDDHARAM MASHALDate: 2022.03.14 MASHAL 12:46:22 +0530

¶2

908.2545.22 wp.doc

¶3

ISM

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶5

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶6

CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 2545 OF 2022

¶7

RAJNISH PANNALAL PANDEY ….PETITIONER

¶8

V/s.

¶9

INDOSTAR CAPITAL FINANCE LTD. …..RESPONDENTS AND ANR

¶10

WITH

¶11

CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 2547 OF 2022

¶12

PANNALAL CHINTAMANI PANDEY ….PETITIONER

¶13

V/s.

¶14

INDOSTAR CAPITAL FINANCE LTD. …..RESPONDENTS AND ANR

¶15

WITH

¶16

CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 2546 OF 2022

¶17

RAJAN PANNALAL PANDEY ….PETITIONER

¶18

V/s.

¶19

INDOSTAR CAPITAL FINANCE LTD. …..RESPONDENTS AND ANR

¶20

Mr. Rajesh Kanojia a/w Adv. Deepika Prabhala a/w Adv. Nikita Singh i/b Res Juris Advocate for the Petitioner

¶21

1/3

¶22

908.2545.22 wp.doc

¶23

CORAM : NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.

¶24

DATE: MARCH 11, 2022.

¶25

P.C.:

¶26

Order impugned in all these petitions are passed under Section 9 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 by the Court at Mohali.

¶27

The contentions is, part of the cause of action to the petition has arisen at Mumbai and as such, Court at Mohali being subordinate Court to High Court of Bombay, this Court has every jurisdiction to entertain the Petition.

¶28

When pointed out that even if part of the cause of action has arisen at Mumbai, even for the sake of arguments, the said contentions are accepted, the fact remains that Respondent has initiated proceedings based on cause of action as has been claimed to have arisen in Mohali which has prompted them to take out proceedings at Mohali. It is always open for the Petitioner to contest the claim either at Mohali before the learned Court which has passed the impugned order or challenge the said order in a Court, by invoking constitutional remedies, having territorial jurisdiction over the said Court.

¶29

2/3

¶30

908.2545.22 wp.doc

¶31

In the aforesaid background, the law which the counsel for the Petitioner has relied on in the matters of Shanti Devi Alias Shanti Mishra V/s. Union of India and Ors¹ and Surya Dev Rai V/s. Ram Chander Rai and Ors² will be of hardly any assistance.

¶32

1. In view of above, no case for exercising jurisdiction is made out. All these petitions as such fail, stand dismissed.

¶33

[NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.]

¶34

1 Civil Appeal No. 3630 of 2020

¶35

2 Civil Appeal No. 6110 of 2003

¶36

3/3

Rajnish Pannalal Pandey v. Indostar Capital Finance Ltd. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajnish Pannalal Pandey v. Indostar Capital Finance Ltd. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mrs. Jayshree Ganesh Khedkar Vs Mr. Ganesh Suryabhan Khedkar

Pushpawati K. Mehta and Anr. Vs Saroj B. Vora and Ors.

Eknath Vishnu Chaudhari Vs M/S. Ashish Combine Thr. Partner Mr. Bharat K. Chheda

Sunil Kumar Bathija Vs the State of Maharashtra

Memuna Mohammed Ashfaque Memon and Ors. Vs Mr. Ashfaque Mohammed Hussain Memon

Mirza Mohammed Khalid Dawood and Ors. Vs Bhiwandi Nizampura City Municipal Corporation Thr Its Commissioner and Ors.