Dismissed

Pravin v. Kidey Ms v D Electricals v Space Age Associates Power Infra Pvt. Ltd. through Its Director Vinayak M. Patil

Bombay HC17 Oct 2024IA/13744/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court rejected an interim application seeking rectification of an earlier order directing the appellant to deposit security into the award. The Court held that while arguments regarding the award's construction were kept open, they could not form the basis for modifying the order at that stage due to the minimal scope of such applications.

What did the court decide?

Applications for rectification of order dated 15 July 2024 were rejected; cost of application awarded to the other side. Contentions kept open.

Pravin v Kidey Ms v D Electricals vs Space Age… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

2024:BHC-AS:41709-DB

¶2

16-IA-13744-2024 Anr (E).docx

¶3

Darshan Patil

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 13744 OF 2024

¶6

¶7

ARBITRATION APPEAL NO. 75 OF 2024

¶8

PRAVIN V. KIDEY ..APPLICANT

¶9

IN THE MATTER BETWEEN

¶10

M/S SPACE AGE ASSOCIATES POWER INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED ..APPELLANT VS. M/S SKIPPER ENGINEERS AND ORS. ..RESPONDENTS

¶11

ALONG WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 13745 OF 2024 IN

¶12

ARBITRATION APPEAL NO. 75 OF 2024

¶13

VIJAY M. NESNATKAR ..APPLICANT

¶14

IN THE MATTER BETWEEN

¶15

M/S SPACE AGE ASSOCIATES POWER INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED ..APPELLANT VS.

¶16

M/S SKIPPER ENGINEERS AND ORS. ..RESPONDENTS

¶17

Mr. V. A. Shastry, for the Applicants.

¶18

Mr. Tukaram Shendge, for the Respondent in Interim Applications and for the Appellant in ARA/75/2024.

¶19

Mr. Rahul Motkari a/w Mr. Manish Modak, for Respondent No.1 in ARA/75/2024.

¶20

1/3

¶21

16-IA-13744-2024 Anr (E).docx

¶22

Darshan Patil

¶23

CORAM : M. S. SONAK & JITENDRA JAIN, JJ.

¶24

DATE : OCTOBER 17, 2024

¶25

P.C.:

¶26

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶27

These applications are for rectification of our order Dated 15 July 2024 in Interim Application No. 10176 of 2024.

¶28

Mr Shastry, learned counsel for the applicants, submitted that the award, which is challenged in the Arbitration Appeal No. 75 of 2024 had directed the appellant in the appeal to pay the original claimant and respondents 2 and 3 to the arbitration proceedings i.e. applicants herein a sum of Rs.2,82,72,645/“each” along with the interest at the rate of 18% from 15 June 2022 till realisation. He submitted that this is clear from the reading of paragraph No. 7 of the award (at page 54 of the paper book )

¶29

Mr Shastry submitted that the order dated 15 July 2024, which is now sought to be modified, directs the appellant in the appeal to deposit Rs.3,50,00,000/-. He submits that this amount is towards securing the above award favouring M/s. Skipper Engineers i.e. claimant before the Arbitrator. Mr Shastry states that an equivalent amount should have been directed to be deposited to secure the claim of original respondents 2 and 3 in the arbitration proceedings i.e. applicants herein. Mr Shastry submitted that should there be any inconsistency between the

¶30

2/3

¶31

Darshan Patil

¶32

16-IA-13744-2024 Anr (E).docx

¶33

operative portion of the award and the main body of the award, such inconsistency has to be construed harmoniously. He submitted that a greater credence is to be given to the discussion in the body of the award.

¶34

Admittedly, the award does not refer to the appellant in arbitration appeal being required to pay to the claimant and respondents 2 and 3 (applicants herein) an amount of Rs.2,82,72,645/- “each” along with the prescribed interest. The crucial word “each” is missing. To day, the applicants have not taken any steps concerning the award.

¶35

Arguments about the interpretation of the award could always be considered at an appropriate stage. However, based on such arguments, no case is made for modifying our order dated 15 July 2024. The scope of an application seeking modification is minimal. In deference to such limited scope, we do not think it would be appropriate to entertain such arguments at this stage.

¶36

These applicants are rejected. But Mr Shastry’s contentions about harmonious construction of the award etc. are kept open.

8. No costs.

(JITENDRA JAIN, J.)

3/3

Signed by: Darshan Patil Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 19/10/2024 15:09:35

Pravin v. Kidey Ms v D Electricals v Space Age Associates Power Infra Pvt. Ltd. through Its Director Vinayak M. Patil

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pravin v. Kidey Ms v D Electricals v Space Age Associates Power Infra Pvt. Ltd. through Its Director Vinayak M. Patil

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

Similar cases

Pravin Kumar Agarwal vs Securities and Exchange Board of India

Abans Enterprises Ltd. vs Securities and Exchange Board of India

Viresh Gangaram Joshi vs Securities and Exchange Board of India

Commissioner of Customs Nhava Sheva I vs Ganesh Benzoplast Limited

M/S in Net India Pvt. Ltd. Thr. Its Director vs Union of India Thr. the Ld. Secretary Ministry of Finance and Ors.

M/S Space Age Associates Power Infra Private Limited Thr. Director Shri. Vinayak Murlidhar Patil vs M/S. Skipper Engineers Thr. Its Partner Shri. Shailesh D Patil and Ors.