Disposed¶28

Vijay Kumar Chandrashekharan v. Pratham Vardvinayk Devlopers LLP

Bombay HC8 May 2025APP/30/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Maintainability of appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 against rejection of a Section 9 interim application; impugned order dated 07.08.2023 held not to be an order under Section 9, Section 9 proceedings disposed of separately; appeal withdrawn with liberty to pursue available remedies; Bombay High Court, APP 30 of 2025, Vijay Kumar Chandrashekharan v. Pratham Vardvinayak Developers LLP and Ors.; appealable orders under Section 37 (sections 8, 9, 16, 17, 34 referred in reproduced text).

What did the court decide?

Leave to withdraw the Appeal with liberty to take recourse to such remedy as may be available to the Appellant in law. ¶28

Vijay Kumar Chandrashekharan vs Pratham Vardvinayk Devlopers LLP — Arbitration | Bombay HC (2025)

¶1

JPP 14. APP 30.2025.doc

¶2

Digitally signed JYOTIPRAKASH by JYOTIPRAKASHPAWAR PAWAR Date: 2025.05.13 12:37:33 +0530

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

APPEAL NO. 30 OF 2025

¶5

Vijay Kumar Chandrashekharan … Appellant V/s.

¶6

Pratham Vardvinayak Developers LLP and Ors. … Respondents

¶7

Mr. Digvijay R. Singh with S.H. Singh i/b. R.T. Kharwar for the Appellant Ms. Disha Karambar Mulgaonkar with Priya Rita i/b. Disha Karambar & Associates for Respondent No. 7(a) and (b)

¶8

CORAM : ALOK ARADHE, CJ. AND M.S. KARNIK, J. DATE : 08^th MAY 2025

¶9

P.C. :

¶10

In this Appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and

¶11

Conciliation Act, 1996, the Appellant has assailed the validity of an order dated 7^th August 2023 by which an interim application filed by the Appellant in a proceedings under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act has been rejected.

¶12

Under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, the Appeal lies against the following orders, which reads thus :-

¶13

“37. Appealable orders.

¶14

(1) [Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, an appeal] [Substituted 'An appeal' by Act No. 33 of 2019, dated 9.8.2019.] shall lie from the following

¶15

1/2

¶16

JPP 14. APP 30.2025.doc

¶17

orders (and from no others) to the Court authorised by law to hear appeals from original decrees of the Court passing the order, namely:

¶18

(a)[ refusing to refer the parties to arbitration under section 8; [Substituted by Act No. 3 of 2016 dated 31.12.2015.]

¶19

(b)granting or refusing to grant any measure under section 9;

¶20

(c)setting aside or refusing to set aside an arbitral award under section 34.]

¶21

(2) An appeal shall also lie to a Court from an order of the arbitral tribunal

¶22

(a)accepting the plea referred to in sub-section (2) or subsection (3) of section 16; or

¶23

(b)granting or refusing to grant an interim measure under section 17.

¶24

(3) No second appeal shall lie from an order passed in appeal under this section, but nothing in this section shall affect or take away any right to appeal to the Supreme Court.”

¶25

The impugned order dated 7^th August 2023 is not an order

¶26

passed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. Admittedly the proceedings under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act has been disposed of by a separate order.

¶27

In view of aforesaid, the learned Counsel for the Appellant seeks leave of this Court to withdraw the Appeal with the liberty to take recourse to such remedy as may be available to him in law.

¶28

With the aforesaid liberty, the Appeal is disposed of.

¶29

( M.S. KARNIK, J. ) ( CHIEF JUSTICE )

¶30

2/2

Vijay Kumar Chandrashekharan v. Pratham Vardvinayk Devlopers LLP

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay Kumar Chandrashekharan v. Pratham Vardvinayk Devlopers LLP

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation vs Union of India through the Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

Suvarna Rajaram Ghevade and Ors. vs the State of Maharashtra through Secretary and Ors.

Milind Keer vs State of Maharashtra through the Office of the Chief Secretary, Mantralaya and Ors.

F. a. Enterprises vs Konkan Irrigation Development Corporation and 2 Ors.

F.a.Enterprises vs Konkan Irrigation Development Corporation and 2 Ors.

F. a. Enterprises vs Konkan Irrigation Development Corporation and 2 Ors.