Disposed

Nath Resorts Pvt. Ltd. Paithan through Its Managing Director and Another v. the State of Maharashtra through Secretary and Others

Bombay HC11 Jan 2024CA/449/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad disposed of a Civil Application arising from arbitration proceedings. Pending contradictory statements on property possession and interim orders, the court directed a status quo for 15 days.

What did the court decide?

Status quo directed to be maintained for 15 days or till the Arbitrator passes an order.

Nath Resorts Pvt. Ltd. Paithan through Its Managing Director and… — Arbitration | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

2024:BHC-AUG:700-DB

¶2

912-CA-449-2024.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 449 OF 2024

¶5

 IN WP/15205/2023

¶6

NATH RESORTS PVT LTD PAITHAN THROUGH ITS MANAGING
DIRECTOR AND ANOTHER
VERSUS

¶7

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

¶8

Mr. V. D. Salunke a/w Mr. Abhishek Patil, Advocates for Applicants
Mr. P. K. Lakhotiya, AGP for Respondent – State
Mr. A. R. Kawade, Advocate for M.T.D.C.

¶9

CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE AND Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ.

¶10

DATE:11.01.2024

¶11

PER COURT :-

¶12

1.The learned Advocate representing the M.T.D.C., on
instructions from Shri Deepak Harane, Regional Manager,
M.T.D.C., Aurangabad, submits that the physical possession of the
property has already been taken over on 13.12.2023. Shri
Salunke, the learned Advocate for the Applicants/Petitioners,
vehemently denies the said contention, on instructions.

¶13

2.We do not wish to go into the disputed questions. The
fact remains that the Petitioners have moved an application to the
M.T.D.C., for initiation of Arbitration Proceedings. According to
the Petitioners, a name has also been suggested.

¶14

1 of 2

¶15

(( 2 ))912-CA-449-2024

¶16

3.The learned Advocate for the M.T.D.C. submits that

¶17

within five days, the name of the Arbitrator would be settled by
mutual consent.

¶18

4.Shri Salunke, the learned Advocate submits that he would
be moving an application for interim orders.

¶19

5.In view of the above statements, this Civil Application is
disposed off.

¶20

6.If the Petitioners make an application for interim orders,
the same would be considered by following the due procedure laid
down in law, by the Arbitrator, within 15 days.

¶21

7.As there are contradictory statements made, on request of
the Petitioners, we direct status-quo to be maintained, on the request
of Shri Salunke, for a further period of 15 days, as like the earlier
order, or till the Arbitrator passes an order, whichever is earlier.

¶22

[ Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J. ] [ RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. ]

¶23

SMS

¶24

 2 of 2

Nath Resorts Pvt. Ltd. Paithan through Its Managing Director and Another v. the State of Maharashtra through Secretary and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nath Resorts Pvt. Ltd. Paithan through Its Managing Director and Another v. the State of Maharashtra through Secretary and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mubarak Mahamad Maljapte Vs the State of Maharashtra through the Principal Secretary and Others

Anil Jaiwantrao Mundhe and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra through Principle Secretary and Others

Shobhatai Trimbakrao Sawant and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Another

Shital Namdev Tigile Vs the State of Maharashtra through Secretary and Another

Tukaram Dattoba Suryawanshi Vs the Ausa Municipal Council through Its Chief Officer

Mayur Kishor Patil and Others Vs the Union of India through Ministry of Personnel Public Grievance and Others