Disposed¶29

Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority v. Mumbai Metro One Private Limited

Bombay HC25 Jul 2025CARBP/427/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

MMRDA vs Mumbai Metro One Private Limited; CARBP 427/2024; Section 34 Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 challenge; National Asset Reconstruction Company Limited applicant IA/3495/2025; IA (L) 22009/2024; Bombay High Court Somasekhar Sundaresan J.; 120-minute oral argument cap; five-page Note on Submissions; final hearing September 8, 2025; procedural/scheduling order, no merits adjudicated.

What did the court decide?

Procedural directions only: oral arguments capped at 120 minutes per side; Note on Submissions (max five pages) to be filed; matter stood over to September 8, 2025 for final hearing and disposal. No merits determined. ¶29

Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority vs Mumbai Metro… — Arbitration | Bombay HC (2025)

¶1

904.CARBP.427.2024.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION PETITION NO.427 OF 2024 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO.22009 OF 2024 IN

¶5

COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION PETITION NO.427 OF 2024

¶6

Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority ....Petitioner Versus

¶7

Mumbai Metro One Private Limited ....Respondent

¶8

WITH

¶9

INTERIM APPLICATION NO.3495 OF 2025 IN

¶10

COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION PETITION NO.427 OF 2024

¶11

National Asset Reconstruction Company Limited ....Applicant Versus

¶12

Mumbai Metro One Private Limited ....Respondent

¶13

Mr. J.P. Sen, Senior Advocate , for the Petitioner in CARBP/427/2024.

¶14

Ms. Anjali Chandurkar a/w. Mr. D.J. Kakalia, Ms. Bhavna Mr. S. Jaipuria, Mr. Parekh Patkar, Mr. Kartik Hega & Mr. Ayaan Zariwalla, Advocates for Respondent.

¶15

Mr. Rohaan Cama a/w. Ms Gathi Prakash, Ms. Nidhi Asher & Mr. Yash More i/b. Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas, Advocates for Applicant in IA/3495/2025.

¶16

CORAM: SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, J. DATE : JULY 25, 2025

¶17

Digitally signed by AARTI AARTI GAJANAN GAJANAN PALKAR PALKAR Date: 2025.08.01 17:31:10 +0530

¶18

Page 1 of 3 JULY 25, 2025

¶19

Aarti Palkar

¶20

904.CARBP.427.2024.doc

¶21

ORDER :

¶22

The captioned Commercial Arbitration Petition is a Petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“ the Act ”).

¶23

Heard Learned Counsel for the parties for an overview of the matter. Based on the nature of the issues involved and bearing in mind the scope of jurisdiction under Section 34 of the Act, Learned Counsel for the parties have graciously agreed that both the Petitioner and the Respondents shall take no longer than 120 minutes each for verbal arguments in the matter.

¶24

Towards this end, the parties shall file a short Note on Submissions, not exceeding five pages, along with page and case law references, focusing on the scope of Section 34 of the Act, and setting out the manner in which the points canvassed by them ought to be accepted by this Court.

¶25

It is made clear that the time commitments made above shall bind the parties, and such time shall be utilized at the discretion of the Learned Counsel for verbalizing the pivotal submissions, resting assured that the rest of their contentions from their Note on Submissions, would be dealt with by the Court.

¶26

Page 2 of 3 JULY 25, 2025

¶27

Aarti Palkar

¶28

904.CARBP.427.2024.doc

¶29

With the aforesaid commitments, stand over to September 8, 2025 , for final hearing and disposal.

¶30

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.

¶31

[ SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, J.]

¶32

Page 3 of 3 JULY 25, 2025

¶33

Aarti Palkar

Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority v. Mumbai Metro One Private Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority v. Mumbai Metro One Private Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Aditya Birla Housing Finance Limited vs Axis Bank Ltd.

State of Uttar Pradesh through Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly Secretariat vs Tata Consultancy Services Limited

Jaywant Villa Co. Operative Housing Society Ltd. vs Mahendra Sawant Proprietor of Mis. Akshay Sthapatya

Nandita Ashok Rajani Nee Nadita Prataprao Chowgule vs Priyadarshini Sanjay Chowgule and 4 Ors.

Hitesh Coal Traders vs Anglomonto Resources Private Limited

Umesh Shankarrao Bhole vs State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and 9 Ors.