Disposed¶22

Tata Motors Finance Limited v. Emi Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.

Bombay HC13 Jan 2025CARBP/317/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Tata Motors Finance Ltd. v. EMI Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.; Bombay High Court; Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction; Commercial Arbitration Petition (CARBP) No. 317 of 2024; Section 29-A Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996; extension of arbitrator's mandate; mandate expired February 27, 2023; application filed May 4, 2024; respondents' counsel absent; notice fixed at conspicuous place of business; service affidavits; mandate extended until October 12, 2025; Somasekhar Sundaresan J.; decided January 13, 2025.

What did the court decide?

Mandate of the arbitrator extended until October 12, 2025 (nine months); Petition finally disposed of in these terms. ¶22

Tata Motors Finance Limited vs Emi Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. — Arbitration | Bombay HC (2025)

¶1

8.CARBP.317.2024.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION PETITION NO.317 OF 2024

¶5

Tata Motors Finance Ltd. ...Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

EMI Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. ...Respondents

¶8

Ms Iraa Dube Patil i/b. Jay & Co., Advocate for Petitioner.

¶9

CORAM: SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, J.

¶10

DATE : JANUARY 13, 2025

¶11

P.C :

¶12

This is a Petition under Section 29-A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ( “the Act” ).

¶13

The facts of the matter are indeed peculiar. The mandate of the arbitrator had expired on February 27, 2023, which is nearly one year after the suspension of limitation due to Covid-19 that was effected by the Supreme Court. The Application came to be filed on May 4, 2024.

¶14

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that pleadings before the Arbitrator are complete, but the matter languished for want of the mandate being extended.

¶15

Digitally AARTI signed byAARTIGAJANAN GAJANAN PALKAR PALKAR Date:2025.01.15 17:54:28 +0530 Aarti Palkar

¶16

Page 1 of 2 JANUARY 13, 2025

¶17

8.CARBP.317.2024.doc

¶18

It is seen that the Learned Counsel for the Respondents had not appeared on September 20, 2024, as well as on October 4, 2024. On that date, a Learned Single Judge of this Court was pleased to permit fixation of notice at a conspicuous place in the place of business, if any, of the Respondents.

¶19

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has placed on record a service affidavit dated November 19, 2024, and another affidavit dated November 21, 2024, as also November 22, 2023.

¶20

Being satisfied with the service of notice, it would be in the fitness of things to extend the mandate of the arbitral tribunal by a period of nine months from today until October 12, 2025.

¶21

In these circumstances, the mandate of the arbitrator is hereby formally extended until October 12, 2025.

¶22

The Petition is finally disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

¶23

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.

¶24

[ SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, J.]

¶25

Page 2 of 2 JANUARY 13, 2025

¶26

Aarti Palkar

Tata Motors Finance Limited v. Emi Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tata Motors Finance Limited v. Emi Infrastructure Pvt. 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Paperbox Company of India vs Goldensource International Pvt. Ltd.

Aruna Nilesh Shah vs Inter Globe Services

Knk Ship Management vs Lakssh Enterprises

Spml Infra Limited vs Mira Bhayander Municipal Corporation

Maharashtra Information Technology Corporation Ltd. vs Cloudstrats Technologies Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.

Mis a P Properties vs Govind K Gajwani