Mafatlal Industries Limited vs Mark Enterprises — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Mafatlal Industries Limited vs Mark Enterprises — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Interlocutory directions: leave to amend the prayer clause (disclosure sought from the Respondents) with reverification dispensed with; substituted service of notice of the Section 9 Petition and Section 11 Application on all Respondents by publication in two widely circulated newspapers in Nashik and Mumbai, returnable date 16/01/2026; notice also permitted by private mode of service on Respondent Nos.5 and 6; matter to be listed on 16/01/2026 alongwith CARAP No.607/2025.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Petitioner may amend the prayer clause of the pending petition/application to seek disclosure from the Respondents. +1 more

Court's answer

Leave is granted to amend the prayer clause in terms of the draft amendment seeking disclosure from the Respondents; the amendment is to be carried out forthwith and reverification is dispensed with.

Ratio / Principle

Notice of the Section 9 Petition as well as the Section 11 Application is permitted to be served upon all the Respondents by substituted mode of service, i.e. by publishing the notice in two widely circulated newspapers in Nashik and Mumbai, indicating the returnable date of 16/01/2026.

Key takeaways

As far as Respondent Nos.5 and 6 are concerned, notice is also permitted to be served through private mode of service, in addition to substituted service.ratio¶¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction (Commercial Division) — Bharati Dangre, J.; order dated 18 December 2025 in Commercial Arbitration Petition No.826 of 2024, Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v. Mark Enterprises & Ors., alongwith Commercial Arbitration Application No.607 of 2025 (SR.No.960). Interim procedural order: (i) leave granted to the Petitioner to amend the prayer clause pursuant to a draft amendment seeking disclosure from the Respondents, reverification dispensed with; (ii) on the Affidavit of Service, Respondent No.1 was served but did not appear; notices were delivered to Respondent Nos.3 and 4 (partners of Respondent No.1), while for Respondent Nos.5 and 6 the noting recorded "No such person reside on the address"; (iii) notice of the Section 9 Petition and the Section 11 Application permitted to be served on all Respondents by substituted service — publication of the notice in two widely circulated newspapers in Nashik and Mumbai — indicating the returnable date of 16/01/2026; notice additionally permitted by private mode of service for Respondent Nos.5 and 6; (iv) matter listed on 16/01/2026 alongwith CARAP No.607/2025.

950-CARbP-826-2024.odt

rajshree

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

IN ITS COMMERCIAL DIVISION

COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION PETITION NO.826 OF 2024

Mafatlal Industries Ltd. ] .. Petitioner

vs.

Mark Enterprises & Ors. ] .. Respondents

ALONGWITIH

COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION APPLICATION NO.607 OF 2025

(SR.NO.960)

Mafatlal Industries Ltd. ] .. Petitioner vs. Mark Enterprises & Ors. ] .. Respondents

Mr.Ranjeev Carvalho a/w Pranav Nair, Abhineet Sharma and Riya Gokalgandhi i/b Chambers of Abhineet for the Petitioner/Applicant.

CORAM : BHARATI DANGRE, J

DATE : 18^th DECEMBER, 2025

P.C.

1 At the outset, Mr. Carvalho the learned counsel representing the Petitioner seek leave to amend the prayer clause in the wake of the draft amendment as he seek disclosure from the Respondents. Leave granted. Amendment is permitted to be carried out forthwith. Reverification stands dispensed with.

RAJSHREEKISHORMORE Digitallysigned byRAJSHREEKISHOR MOREDate:2025.12.1911:27:30+0530

The learned counsel Mr. Carvalho representing the Petitioner by relying upon the Affidavit of Service would submit that though Respondent No.1 is served, there is no appearance on its behalf. An

1/2

950-CARbP-826-2024.odt

attempt is also made to serve notice upon Respondent Nos.2 to 6, partners of Respondent No.1, and though the notice is delivered to Respondent Nos.3 and 4, as far as Respondent Nos.5 and 6 are concerned, the noting record that “No such person reside on the address”.

In the wake of aforesaid, the Petitioner is permitted to serve notice as regard Section 9 Petition as well as Section 11 Application, upon all the Respondents through substituted mode of service by publishing the notice in two widely circulated Newspapers, in Nashik and Mumbai, indicating the returnable date of the proceedings to be 16/01/2026.

2 As far as Respondent Nos.5 and 6 are concerned, notice is also permitted to be served through private mode of service.

3 List on 16/01/2026 alongwith CARAP No.607/2025.

[BHARATI DANGRE, J]

2/2