Disposed¶21

Tata Capital Limited v. K K Birla and Co.

Bombay HC16 Sept 2025CARBP/728/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Substitution of sole arbitrator; arbitrator unable to continue as a matter of law; substitute sole arbitrator appointed (Ms. Sneha Phene) on same terms of appointment; Section 11 application; commercial arbitration; Tata Capital Limited v. K. K. Birla and Co.; Bombay High Court; order dated September 16, 2025; connected matters CARAPL (L) Nos. 28764, 28774, 28801 of 2025 and Commercial Arbitration Petition No.728 of 2025.

What did the court decide?

Substitution of the earlier Sole Arbitrator by Ms. Sneha Phene, Advocate, as substitute Sole Arbitrator on the same terms of appointment; CARAPL/28798/2025, CARAPL/28774/2025 and CARAPL/28801/2025 finally disposed of; Commercial Arbitration Petition No.728 of 2025 stood over to September 29, 2025. ¶21

Tata Capital Limited vs K K Birla and Co. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶21

Issue for consideration

Whether the Sole Arbitrator appointed in the matter, who is unable to continue as an Arbitrator as a matter of law, should be substituted.

¶20

Court's answer

The earlier Arbitrator is substituted by Ms. Sneha Phene, a Learned Advocate of this Court, as substitute Sole Arbitrator; the parties shall approach the substituted Sole Arbitrator for further instructions, and the terms of appointment of the substituted Sole Arbitrator shall be the same as the earlier Arbitrator.

¶21

Ratio / Principle

With the aforesaid directions, CARAPL/28798/2025, CARAPL/28774/2025 and CARAPL/28801/2025 are finally disposed of.

¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction), Somasekhar Sundaresan, J., order dated September 16, 2025 (corrected pursuant to speaking to the minutes of order dated November 7, 2025) in Commercial Arbitration Applications (L) Nos. 28798, 28774 and 28801 of 2025 — Tata Capital Limited v. K. K. Birla and Co. & Ors.: noting that the Learned Sole Arbitrator appointed in the matter was unable to continue as an Arbitrator as a matter of law, the Court substituted Ms. Sneha Phene, a Learned Advocate of this Court, as substitute Sole Arbitrator; the parties were directed to approach the substituted Sole Arbitrator for further instructions, and the terms of appointment of the substituted Sole Arbitrator were to be the same as those of the earlier Arbitrator. With these directions, CARAPL/28798/2025, CARAPL/28774/2025 and CARAPL/28801/2025 were finally disposed of. Commercial Arbitration Petition No.728 of 2025 was stood over to September 29, 2025, to come up along with the corresponding Section 11 application, Commercial Arbitration Application (L) No.28764 of 2025. All actions under the order were to be taken upon receipt of a downloaded copy from the Court's website.

¶1

918.CARAPL.28798.2025.doc (corrected).doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION APPLICATION (L) NO.28798 OF 2025 WITH COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION APPLICATION (L) NO.28764 OF 2025 WITH COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION APPLICATION (L) NO.28774 OF 2025 WITH COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION APPLICATION (L) NO.28801 OF 2025

¶5

Tata Capital Limited ….Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

K. K. Birla and Co. & Ors. ....Respondents

¶8

WITH

¶9

COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION PETITION NO.728 OF 2025 (NOT ON BOARD)

¶10

Ms. Sanaya Dadachanji a/w. Resham Savla i/b. Manilal Kher Ambalal & Co., Advocates for Petitioner in all Petitions.

¶11

CORAM: SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, J.

¶12

DATE : SEPTEMBER 16, 2025

¶13

ORDER :

¶14

Commercial Arbitration Petition No.728 Of 2025 is stood over to

¶15

September 29, 2025. To come up along with corresponding Section 11 Application i.e. Commercial Arbitration Application (L) No.28764 of 2025.

¶16

(This Order is corrected pursuant to speaking to the minutes of order dated November 7, 2025)

¶17

Page 1 of 2 SEPTEMBER 16, 2025

¶18

Aarti Palkar

¶19

918.CARAPL.28798.2025.doc (corrected).doc

¶20

The Learned Sole Arbitrator appointed in the matter is unable to continue as an Arbitrator as a matter of law. In these circumstances, substitution is necessitated.

¶21

Taking the aforesaid statement on record, the earlier Arbitrator is hereby substituted by the Ms. Sneha Phene, a Learned Advocate of this Court: [email protected]) as the substitute Sole Arbitrator. The parties shall approach the Learned Sole Arbitrator for further instructions in the matter. The terms of appointment of the substituted Sole Arbitrator shall be the same as the earlier Arbitrator. With the aforesaid directions, CARAPL/28798/2025, CARAPL/28774/2025 & CARAPL/28801/2025 are finally disposed of .

¶22

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.

¶23

[ SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, J.]

¶24

(This Order is corrected pursuant to speaking to the minutes of order dated November 7, 2025)

¶25

Page 2 of 2 SEPTEMBER 16, 2025

¶26

Aarti Palkar

Tata Capital Limited v. K K Birla and Co.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tata Capital Limited v. K K Birla and Co.

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

Rajeev Manmohan Gupta vs Brijwasi Builders

Nikhil Jain vs Palm Grove Beach Hotels Private Limited

M/s Metacan Industries vs Palm Grove Beach Hotels Private Limited

Urmila Balkishen Gupta and Anr. vs Manish Balkishan Gupta and 15 Ors.

Ajay Gupta vs Devanshu Bansal

Girivan Lalit Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. vs Chembur Uttan Cooperative Housing Society Limited