Allowed

Stay Vista Private Limited v. Vikram Munshi

Bombay HC29 Jul 2024ARBP/208/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An arbitration petition under Section 27 sought court assistance in taking evidence: production of electricity bills relating to a property before an arbitral tribunal. As the respondent lacked the documents, the Court granted prayer clause (b), directing MSEDCL to produce the bills to the sole arbitrator within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

MSEDCL directed to produce specified electricity bills before the Sole Arbitrator within 4 weeks.

Stay Vista Private Limited vs Vikram Munshi — Arbitration | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

05-ARBP-208-2024.doc

¶2

Arjun

¶3

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

¶4

ARBITRATION PETITION NO.208 OF 2024

¶5

Stay Vista Private Limited Versus	…Petitioner
Vikram Munshi _________________________________	…Respondent _____________________________

¶6

Mr. Aseem Naphade a/w Fatema Tankiwala i/b LJ Law, for the Petitioner.

¶7

Mr. Yash Momaya a/w Neha Shah i/b AMR Law, for the Respondent.

¶8

CORAM: MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J. DATED: 01 OCTOBER 2024

¶9

P.C.:

¶10

1. Heard Mr. Naphade, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Mr.

¶11

Momaya, learned Counsel for the Respondent.

¶12

2. The present Arbitration Petition has been filed under Section 27

¶13

of the Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 (“ said Act ”) inter alia seeking following reliefs:-

¶14

“(a) that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the Respondent to produce before the Arbitral Tribunal the Electricity Bills for the period from November 2019 to November 2020 in respect of Consumer No.024100007769 and Meter No.06206070 which pertain to the subject property i.e. "Munshi House" located at Katalpada, Agarsule Phata, Alibaug 402201;

¶15

(b) In the alternative to prayer clause (a) above this Hon'ble

¶16

¶17

05-ARBP-208-2024.doc

¶18

Court be pleased to direct the Maharashtra State Electricity Distributor Company Limited (MSEDCL) to produce before the Arbitral Tribunal the Electricity Bills for the period from November 2019 to November 2020 in respect of Consumer No.024100007769 and Meter No.06206070 which pertain to the subject property i.e. "Munshi House" located at Katalpada, Agarsule Phata, Alibaug 402201 issued by MSEDCL;”

¶19

3. Mr. Momaya, learned Counsel for the Respondent states that the Respondent is not having the relevant document as set out in prayer clause (a). The paryer clause (b) which is the alternate relief, seeks that the Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited (MSEDCL) be directed to produce before the Hon’ble Tribunal the original and/or certified copy of Electricity Bills from November 2019 to November 2020 in respect of Consumer No.024100007769.

¶20

4. Section 27 of the said Act reads as under:-

¶21

“ 27. Court assistance in taking evidence. —(1) T he arbitral tribunal, or a party with the approval of the arbitral tribunal, may apply to the Court for assistance in taking evidence .

¶22

(2) The application shall specify—

¶23

(a) the names and addresses of the parties and the arbitrators;

¶24

(b) the general nature of the claim and the relief sought;

¶25

¶26

(i) the name and address of any person to be heard as witness or expert witness and a statement of the subjectmatter of the testimony required;

¶27

(ii) the description of any document to be produced or property to be inspected.

¶28

¶29

05-ARBP-208-2024.doc

¶30

(3) The Court may, within its competence and according to its rules on taking evidence, execute the request by ordering that the evidence be provided directly to the arbitral tribunal.

¶31

(4) The Court may, while making an order under sub-section (3), issue the same processes to witnesses as it may issue in suits tried before it.

¶32

(5) Persons failing to attend in accordance with such process, or making any other default, or refusing to give their evidence, or guilty of any contempt to the arbitral tribunal during the conduct of arbitral proceedings, shall be subject to the like disadvantages, penalties and punishments by order of the Court on the representation of the arbitral tribunal as they would incur for the like offences in suits tried before the Court.

¶33

(6) In this section the expression “Processes” includes summonses and commissions for the examination of witnesses and summonses to produce documents.”

¶34

(Emphasis added)

¶35

5. Order XVI Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is as

¶36

follows:-

¶37

“ 6. Summons to produce document. —Any person may be summoned to produce a document, without being summoned to give evidence, and any person summoned merely to produce a document shall be deemed to have complied with the summons if he causes such document to be produced instead of attending personally to produce the same.”

¶38

6. Thus, this Court is empowered to pass Order by directing that the evidence in the form of documents be produced before the Arbitral

¶39

Tribunal. As in this case the Respondent has stated that the relevant

¶40

¶41

05-ARBP-208-2024.doc

¶42

documents are not in the custody of the Respondent, the alternative prayer clause (b) seeking direction to the Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited (MSEDCL) is required to be granted.

¶43

7. Thus, the Arbitration Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause

¶44

(b).

¶45

8. Accordingly, the MSEDCL is directed to produce before Mr. Ranjeev P. Carvalho, the Sole Arbitrator, having address at 501/502, Shanti Building, Banaji Street, Fort, Mumbai- 400010 the documents mentioned in prayer clause (b) within 4 weeks.

¶46

Stay Vista Private Limited v. Vikram Munshi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Stay Vista Private Limited v. Vikram Munshi

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Shanti Devi Widow of Manoharlal Chanderbhan vs Kewalram Mulchand and Ors.

Mrs. Dimple Parag Thakkar vs Mr. Parag Chandrakant Thakkar

Rachit Deviprasad Tiwari vs State of Maharashtra

Kalpataru Construction Private Limited vs Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (I)

Kalpataru Limited vs Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (I)

Kalpataru Properties (Thane) Private Limited vs Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (I)