Remanded

Satishchandra Soman v. Caltherm Thermostats India Private Limited

Bombay HC2 May 2024ARP/16/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This interim order in an arbitration petition addressed the petitioner's request to appoint a sole arbitrator regarding a 999-year lease dispute involving rental arrears and eviction. The petitioner notified the respondent for arbitrator appointment, but the respondent failed to participate. The court issued notice to the respondent and listed the matter for future hearing.

What did the court decide?

Notice issued to respondent returnable within four weeks; matter listed on 18th June 2024.

Satishchandra Soman vs Caltherm Thermostats India Private Limited — Arbitration | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

37-ARP-16-2024.DOC

¶2

Gaikwad RD

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ARBITRATION PETITION NO.16 OF 2024

¶4

Satishchandra Soman …Petitioner Versus M/s. Caltherm Thermostats India Private Limited …Respondent

¶5

Mr. Rujshikesh S. Kekane, i/b. Mr. Mahadji Phalke, for the Petitioner.

¶6

CORAM Dr. Neela Gokhale, J. DATED: 2^nd May 2024

¶7

PC:-

¶8

1. The petitioner seeks appointment of a sole arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the parties arising out of an agreement dated 8^th August 1988. Mr. Kekane, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner states that the dispute is relating to arrears of rent to be paid by the Respondent to the Petitioner. The Petitioner is also seeking eviction of the Respondent in view of the default in payment of rent. As per the agreement, the lease is valid for a period of 999 years.

¶9

Page 1 of 2 2^nd May 2024

¶10

37-ARP-16-2024.DOC

¶11

2. Clause 7 provides for referring any dispute arising in respect of the said agreement to arbitration ‘in accordance with the provisions of the law for the time being in force’.

¶12

3. Mr. Kekane, learned counsel states that the interpretation of the words, ‘the law for the time being in force’ imply the law which is in force on the date when the dispute has arisen and not the date of the execution of the agreement. Be that as it may, he states that a notice invoking the arbitration clause was sent to the Respondent on 11^th August 2023 inviting them to participate in the appointment of arbitrator. The Respondent replied to the said notice by its reply dated 21^st September 2023. However, the Respondent failed to participate in the appointment of an arbitrator. Hence, the Petitioner has filed present petition seeking appointment of an arbitrator.

¶13

4. Issue notice to Respondent returnable within four weeks from today. The Petitioner is also permitted to serve the Respondent by private notice through all modes of communication as permissible in law. He undertakes to file an affidavit of service on or before the next date.

¶14

5. List the matter on 18^th June 2024.

¶15

(Dr. Neela Gokhale, J)

¶16

Page 2 of 2 2^nd May 2024

¶17

Signed by: Raju D. Gaikwad Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 04/05/2024 10:31:22

Satishchandra Soman v. Caltherm Thermostats India Private Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satishchandra Soman v. Caltherm Thermostats India Private Limited

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

Prakash and Daga Infra Projects Private Limited vs Landmark Abodes Private Limited

Mr. Subhash Sitaram Goel and Others vs Marvel Landmarks Private Limited and Others

Vijay Ramsevak Chourasiya and Anr. vs Ramsevak Budhai Chourasia

Tlm Multi-Designer E - Store LLP vs House Ofthl LLP

Shameera Vijay Shetty vs Shubh Enterprises

Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. vs Haripriya Milk and Milk Product