Dismissed

Rahul Bhaskar Mhaske and Anr. v. M/S. Gandhi and Associates through Its Partners Navneet U. Gandhi,Amit N. Gandhi

Bombay HC19 Mar 2024WP/3604/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged an arbitrator's order rejecting their Section 16 jurisdiction objection, citing MOFA protection and limitation. The court held MOFA confers no eviction protection like rent control laws, limitation is evidentiary for the arbitrator, and writ interference is impermissible unless the order is perverse. Petition dismissed.

What the court decided

AI extract

Rahul Bhaskar Mhaske and Anr. vs M/S. Gandhi and Associates… — Arbitration | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

3-WP-3604-2024.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 3604 OF 2024

¶4

Rahul Bhaskar Mhaske And Anr ...Petitioners Versus M/s. Gandhi And Associates Through Its Partners Navneet U. Gandhi, Amit N. Gandhi ...Respondent

¶5

Mr. Rahul B. Mhaske, Petitioner-in-person.

¶6

Mr. J.P. Patil, A.G.P. for the Respondent – State.

¶7

CORAM : AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J. DATE : 10^th JULY, 2024

¶8

P.C.:

¶9

Heard Mr. Mhaske, petitioner, party in person. The petition questions the order on an Application under Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, (the Arbitration Act) dated 04.01.2024, whereby the learned Arbitrator, has rejected the Objection to jurisdiction raised by the Petitioner.

¶10

TALLE

¶11

SHUBHAM ASHOKRAO

¶12

Digitally signed by TALLE SHUBHAM ASHOKRAO Date: 2024.07.11 18:34:37 +0530

¶13

The basic grievance is that the issue of limitation, which according to the petitioner, goes to the jurisdiction has not been decided; the petitioner is the owner of the immovable

1 of 4

Shubham Talle

3-WP-3604-2024.doc

property, which is registered under the Maharashtra Ownership Flats & Apartment Act, 1963 (MOFA), on account of it been a special statute eviction cannot be permitted and therefore the disputes becomes non arbitrable for which he placed reliance on the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vidya Drolia & Ors. Vs. Durga Trading Corporation¹ . It is further contended, that relief of creating a charge which is claimed in the statement of claim is also beyond the jurisdiction of the arbitrator, on which counts, the application ought to have been allowed.

¶18

Insofar as the plea of statutory protection is concerned the argument that the petitioner cannot be evicted being the owner of the property which is registered under MOFA, it is necessary to note, that MOFA does not grant any statutory protection from eviction as is the case under the Rent Control Legislation. The ratio in Vidya Drolia (supra) , regarding the protection to the tenant is on account of the protection granted under the Rent Control Legislation and therefore cannot be applied to the case of the petitioner. Similar would be the position in respect of the plea which is been raised that the provisions of

¶19

1 2019 SCC Onlice SC 358

2 of 4

Shubham Talle

3-WP-3604-2024.doc

the transfer of property Act would be applicable to the agreement in favour of the petitioner. In that view of the matter, the contentions is without any merits.

¶24

The plea of limitation is a plea, which has to be decided by the Arbitrator, on the basis of the evidence which would be laid before him and cannot form the subject matter of a plea under Section 16 of the Arbitration Act.

¶25

The further contention, that the charge is sought to be created upon the property of the owner, which is not permissible, is also dependent upon decision regarding the main relief sought and which may or may not be granted to the claimant in the proceedings and cannot be a subject matter of plea under Section 16 of the Arbitration Act. According to me the invocation of writ jurisdiction, is prohibited in arbitration and conciliation matters, unless it is shown that the impugned order is perverse.

¶26

I have perused the impugned order and considered the pleas raised by the petitioner against the same and do not find that its satisfies the requirement of law in that regard. I therefore do not see any reason to interfere.

3 of 4

Shubham Talle

3-WP-3604-2024.doc

Needless to say that these pleas can be raised by the petitioner in proceedings under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, in case it is so permissible in law.

¶31

The petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶32

(AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.)

¶33

4 of 4

¶34

Shubham Talle

Rahul Bhaskar Mhaske and Anr. v. M/S. Gandhi and Associates through Its Partners Navneet U. Gandhi,Amit N. Gandhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Rahul Bhaskar Mhaske and Anr. v. M/S. Gandhi and Associates through Its Partners Navneet U. Gandhi,Amit N. Gandhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Dharmendra Wadkar Vs Supriya @ Geeta Subhash Wadkar

Milind Shriram Limaye, Founder and President of Competitive Tournament Rummy Players Association vs the State of Maharashtra Thru Its Dept. of Home and Ors.

Milind Shriram Limaye Founder and President of Competitive Tournament Rummy Players Association vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Dept. of Home and Ors.

The Goa State Cooperative Bank Ltd., Thr. Its Branch Manager, a M Chodankar Vs Delta Associates and 2 Ors.

Shital Dagadu Kauthekar and Anr. vs Ravindra Dagadu Gaikwad and Ors.

Yakub Baig Trust Panvel Thr. Its Chief Trustee vs Gana Mahadu Gaikar and Ors.