Arbitration petition seeking appointment of an Arbitrator was rendered infructuous because the sole Arbitrator passed a Consent Award on 25/08/2023, which was placed on record. The petition was disposed of as nothing survived.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
MANDIRAMILINDSALGAONKAR Digitally signed by MANDIRAMILIND SALGAONKARDate: 2024.01.11 10:22:48+0530
1/1 24 ARP-132-22.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
ARBITRATION PETITION NO.132 OF 2022
Sunil Sarojbhai Shah .. Petitioner
Versus
Indraneel Landmarks LLP through .. Respondents it’s partner Devendra Sarojbhai Shah & Ors.
Mr.Tejas D. Deshmukh for the Petitioner.
Ms.Kanchan Phatak h/f Mr.Nitin P. Deshpande for the Respondent No.1.
Mr.Rashmin Jain with Mr.Prathamesh Jadhav i/b Kanga & CO. for the Respondent Nos.2 to 7.
CORAM: BHARATI DANGRE, J. DATED : 10th JANUARY, 2024
P.C:-
The learned counsel for the Respondents do not dispute the above statement.
( SMT. BHARATI DANGRE, J.)
M.M.Salgaonkar
Sunil Sarojbhai Shah
Indraneel Landmarks LLP through its partner Devendra Sarojbhai Shah
Bharati Dangre
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
