Kaybee Construction and Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Rep. by Its Auth. Rep. Karan Anil Kohli Vs Zuari Industries Ltd.

¶1

2025:BHC-GOA:1423

¶2

ARP-1-2025.DOCX

¶3

Meena

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT OF ARBITRATOR NO. 1 OF 2025

¶5

KAYBEE CONSTRUCTION AND

¶6

ENGINEERS PVT. LTD.

¶7

a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 having its oice at 328, Bussa Industrial Estate, Century Bazaar Lane, Prabhadevi, Murnbai - 400 025, duly represented by its authorized representative, Mr.

¶8

Karan Anil Kohli, Director

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

Versus

¶11

ZUARI INDUSTRIES LTD.

¶12

a company incorporated under the

¶13

Companies Act, 1956 having its

¶14

oice at 5th Floor, Tower A, Global Business Park, MG Road, Sector 26,

¶15

Gurugrarn - 122 022, Haryana

¶16

... RESPONDENT

¶17

Mr. Clayton Anthony Fonseca, Advocate for the Petitioner

¶18

Mr. Yogesh Nadkarni with Ms. Simran Khadilkar and Mr. Nilesh Nadkarni, Advocates for the Respondent.

¶19

CORAM: VALMIKI MENEZES, J. DATED: 1^st AUGUST, 2025.

1^st August, 2025

ARP-1-2025.DOCX

ORAL ORDER :

he above Application is iled under Section 15(2) read with Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short “the Arbitration Act”) seeking appointment of a substitute Arbitrator due to termination of mandate of Arbitrator on withdrawal from oice in terms of Section 15(1) (a).

¶24

he Applicant had iled an application bearing number AAR/ 13/2023 before this Court for Appointment of an Arbitrator, to refer a dispute arising between the parties out of ‘Work Order dated 14.09.2016’, in accordance with the Arbitral Clause at Clause 23.1 of the Work Order. Vide order of this Court dated 04.01.2024, Shri. Justice N. A. Britto, retired Judge of the Bombay High Court, was appointed as the Sole Arbitrator.

¶25

Mr. Clayton Fonseca, learned Advocate for the Applicant states that the parties appeared before the Sole Arbitrator and have completed their pleadings. It is further stated that the Evidence of the Petitioner and its witnesses was completed; the evidence of the Respondent was also completed and the matter was at the stage for cross examination of the Respondent witness when the Sole Arbitrator withdrew from oice due to personal reasons, and communicated vide letter dated 24.05.2025, sent vide email by which, the mandate of the Arbitrator stood terminated in terms of Section 15(1)(a) of the Arbitration Act, which now necessitates the Appointment of a Substitute Arbitrator as per Section 15(2).

Page 2 of 5

1^st August, 2025

ARP-1-2025.DOCX

Learned Advocate for the Respondent, on instructions, states that the Respondent consents to continue the arbitration from the last stage of the arbitral proceedings before previous Arbitrator.

¶30

In these circumstances, the following order is passed:

¶31

(A) Mr. Bharat P. Deshpande, a Retired High Court Judge is appointed as the substitute Arbitrator to decide upon the disputes and diferences between the Applicant and the Respondent arising out of and/or in connection with and/or in relation to the Work Order referred to in para 1 above. he parties agree that the arbitral proceedings shall continue from the stage last completed by the previous Arbitrator, within a period of 12 months which shall commence from the date of receipt of this order by the Arbitrator.

¶32

(B) A copy of this order will be communicated to the learned Sole Arbitrator by the Advocate for the Applicant within a period of one week from today.

¶33

(C) he learned Sole Arbitrator is requested to forward his Statement of Disclosure under Section 11 (8) read with Section 12 (1) of the Arbitration Act to the Advocate for the Applicant so as to enable him to ile the same in the Registry of this Court. he Registry of this Court shall retain the said Statement on the ile of this Application and a copy of the same shall be furnished by the Advocates for the Applicant to the Advocates for the Respondent.

Page 3 of 5

1^st August, 2025

ARP-1-2025.DOCX

(D) he parties shall appear before the learned Sole Arbitrator on such date and at such place as he nominates to obtain appropriate directions with regard to ixing a schedule. he learned Sole Arbitrator shall give all further directions with reference to the arbitration and also as to how it is to proceed.

¶38

(E) he parties agree and consent that the Arbitral proceedings shall continue and be concluded within twelve months from the date of receipt of this order by the Arbitrator and it is further agreed by the parties that the extension granted to the initial proceeding shall be deemed to be within the aforesaid time period.

¶39

(F) Contact and communication particulars shall be provided by both sides to the learned Sole Arbitrator within a period of one week from today. his information shall include a valid and functional email address as well as the mobile numbers of the respective Advocates.

¶40

(G) he parties have agreed that the seat of the arbitration will be in Goa, and the venue shall be as per the directions of the arbitrator. Needless to state that under section 15(3) of the Arbitration Act, the Arbitrator is always at liberty to repeat any hearings previously held.

¶41

The Application is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶42

his order will be digitally signed by the Private Secretary/Personal As- Page 4 of 5

¶43

1^st August, 2025

¶44

ARP-1-2025.DOCX

¶45

sistant of this Court. All concerned will act on production by email of a digitally signed copy of this order.

VALMIKI MENEZES, J.

Page 5 of 5

1^st August, 2025

Signed by: MEENA VISHAL BHOIR Designation: Private Secretary Date: 05/08/2025 15:17:11

Kaybee Construction and Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Rep. by Its Auth. Rep. Karan Anil Kohli v. Zuari Industries Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kaybee Construction and Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Rep. by Its Auth. Rep. Karan Anil Kohli v. Zuari Industries Ltd.

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

Similar cases

Filomena Correia and Anr. Vs Paulo Pereira and 2 Ors.

Uday G. Naik Vs Jose Inacio Guido De Loyola Furtado and 5 Ors.

Sadanand Babuso Naik (Since Dec. Rep. Thr. Lrs) Vs Dr. Alberto Sequeira (Since Dec. Thr. Lrs) and Anr.

Vikramsingh Routella and Anr., Vs Narcinva Govind Naik, Thr. His Poa, Pradeep Narcinva Naik and 7 Ors.

Manuel Lawrence D Costa and Anr. Vs Peter J. Godinho and Anr.

M/S. West Coast Shipyard, Rep. Thr. Its Partners Vs Sanghi BRO0THERS (Indore) Private Ltd., Thr. Its Director Ashok Balkrishna Deshprabhu