Allowed

Cybertch System and Software Limited through Authorised Representative Mr Rahul Jha v. Deputy Municipal Commissioner Property Tax Department Pune Municipal Corporation

Bombay HC3 Apr 2025ARP/178/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 11 petition seeking appointment of an arbitrator over disputes under a 2017 agreement. The court found a valid arbitration agreement, applied the limited scope of Section 11 review, appointed a sole arbitrator, and kept all merits issues open.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; Mihir Naniwadekar, Advocate, appointed Sole Arbitrator; costs of tribunal borne equally in first instance.

Cybertch System and Software Limited through Authorised… — Arbitration | Bombay HC (2025)

¶1

39-ARP-178-2024 copy.docx

¶2

PURTI PRASAD PARAB

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

Digitally signed by PURTI PRASAD PARAB Date: 2025.07.01 18:37:55 +0530

¶5

ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 178 OF 2024

¶6

Cybertch System and Software Limited …Petitioner Versus Deputy Municipal Commissioner Property Tax Department, Pune Municipal Corporation …Respondent

¶7

Mr. Pandit Kasar a/w Mr. Vikram Ghorpade for the Petitioner. Mr. Rajdeep S. Khadapkar for the Respondent.

¶8

CORAM : SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, J. DATE : JUNE 23, 2025

¶9

ORDER :

¶10

This Petition has been filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ( “the Act” ) seeking appointment of an arbitrator in connection with disputes and differences that are said to have arisen between the parties under an Agreement dated February 1, 2017 ( “Agreement” ). The arbitration agreement is contained in Clause 1.13 of the Agreement (found at Page No.37 of the Petition). In the interest of brevity, the arbitration agreement is not being extracted here. Suffice it to say that this matter falls within the jurisdiction of this Court.

¶11

The parties have no quarrel with proceeding to arbitration forthwith. The arbitration agreement provides for each of the parties to nominate one arbitrator and for the arbitration to be conducted by a twomember Arbitral Tribunal.

¶12

Page 1 of 4 June 23, 2025

¶13

39-ARP-178-2024 copy.docx

¶14

Evidently, this clause may have been initially drafted in some instrument before the Act was brought into effect, with that template haivng been followed in this Agreement. Be that as it may, it is evident from the correspondence between the parties that the Respondent is willing to proceed to arbitration provided one of the two names suggested by them is accepted by the Petitioner. The Petitioner does not have any instructions to accept either name.

¶15

The scope of review under Section 11 is explicitly set out in Section 11(6A) of the Act. It is now trite law, with particular regard to the Supreme Court’s decision rendered by a seven-judge Bench in the Interplay Judgement¹ followed by multiple others, including SBI General² and Patel³ that the Section 11 Court ought not to venture beyond examining the existence of a validly existing arbitration agreement that has been formally executed. Even questions of existential substance is a matter that falls squarely in the domain of the arbitral tribunal, in view of Section 16 of the Act.

¶16

Being satisfied that an arbitration agreement is validly in existence, and that arbitration has been duly invoked, it is in the fitness of things to refer the disputes and differences between the parties in connection with the aforesaid Agreement to arbitration by a Sole Arbitrator.

¶17

1 In Re: Interplay Between Arbitration Agreements under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and Stamp Act, 1899 - (2024) 6 SCC 1

¶18

2 SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Krish Spinning - 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1754

¶19

3 Ajay Madhusudan Patel Vs. Jyotrindra S. Patel - 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2597

¶20

Page 2 of 4 June 23, 2025

¶21

Purti Parab

¶22

39-ARP-178-2024 copy.docx

¶23

In these circumstances, noticing the willingness of the Respondent to proceed to arbitration and also the fact that the arbitration agreement contains clause that is not consistent with the Act, the Application is finally disposed of in the following terms:-

¶24

A] Mr. Mihir Naniwadekar, Learned Advocate of this Court is hereby appointed as the Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes and differences between the parties arising out of and in connection with the Agreement referred to above; Address : 1202, Bhushan, Mayur Colony, Kothrud,

¶25

Pune – 411 038. Email – [email protected]

¶26

B] A copy of this Order will be communicated to the Learned Sole Arbitrator by the Advocate for the Petitioner within a period of one week from the date on which this order is uploaded on the website of this Court. The Petitioner shall provide the contact and communication particulars of the parties to the Arbitral Tribunal along with a copy of this Order;

¶27

C] The Learned Sole Arbitrator is requested to forward the statutory Statement of Disclosure under Section 11(8) read with Section 12(1) of the Act to the Advocate for the Petitioner so as to enable them to file the same in the Registry of this Court. The Registry of this Court shall retain the said Statement on the file of this Petition and a copy of the same shall be furnished by the Advocate for the Petitioner to the Respondent;

¶28

D] The parties shall appear before the Learned Sole Arbitrator on such date and at such place as indicated, to obtain appropriate directions with regard to conduct of the arbitration

¶29

Page 3 of 4 June 23, 2025

¶30

Purti Parab

¶31

39-ARP-178-2024 copy.docx

¶32

including fixing a schedule for pleadings, examination of witnesses, if any, schedule of hearings etc. At such meeting, the parties shall provide a valid and functional email address along with mobile and landline numbers of the respective Advocates of the parties to the Arbitral Tribunal. Communications to such email addresses shall constitute valid service of correspondence in connection with the arbitration;

¶33

E] All arbitral costs and fees of the Arbitral Tribunal shall be borne by the parties equally in the first instance, and shall be subject to any final Award that may be passed by the Tribunal in relation to costs.

¶34

Needless to say, nothing contained in this order is an expression of an opinion on merits of the matter or the relative strength of the parties. All issues on merits are expressly kept open to be agitated before the arbitral tribunal appointed hereby.

¶35

All actions required to be taken pursuant to this order shall be taken upon receipt of a downloaded copy as available on this Court’s website.

¶36

[ SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, J.]

¶37

Page 4 of 4 June 23, 2025

¶38

Purti Parab

Cybertch System and Software Limited through Authorised Representative Mr Rahul Jha v. Deputy Municipal Commissioner Property Tax Department Pune Municipal Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Cybertch System and Software Limited through Authorised Representative Mr Rahul Jha v. Deputy Municipal Commissioner Property Tax Department Pune Municipal Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. vs Kamal Madhavdas Rajpal

Joseph Anthony D Cunha vs Acknur Property Developers

Lords Inn Hotels and Developers Pvt. Ltd. vs Garden Dinner Club

Sagar Shridatta Shrodkar vs Prabhakar Tikendra Paul

Smfg India Credit Company Limited vs Himat Devji Bhanushali

Twist Spin Industries vs Harikishan Gokuldas Kalantry