Disposed¶18

Hemant Vishwasrao Chavan v. Sicom Limited.

Bombay HC21 Nov 2025IA/3883/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: recovery of arbitration fees; arbitral award fee burden on arbitration respondents; SICOM and MSFC public sector undertakings non-payment; interim application withdrawn with liberty; exclusion of time taken in proceeding; Bombay High Court Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction; Interim Application No. 3883 of 2025 in Company Petition No. 200 of 2014; Arif S. Doctor; Official Liquidator; speaking to minutes 5th January 2026.

What did the court decide?

The Interim Application was withdrawn and disposed of; liberty granted to the Applicant to pursue the remedy for recovery of arbitration fees against SICOM and MSFC, with the time taken in prosecuting this proceeding excluded from any such recovery proceedings. ¶18

Hemant Vishwasrao Chavan vs Sicom Limited. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶18

Issue for consideration

Whether the reliefs sought by the Applicant in Interim Application No. 3883 of 2025 - concerning the arbitration fees payable by SICOM and MSFC in terms of the arbitral award - should be granted.

¶12

Court's answer

Having heard the matter at substantial length, the Judge indicated that he was not inclined to grant the reliefs sought, because in his view the arbitral award itself makes clear that the arbitration fees have to be borne by the respondents in the arbitration, namely SICOM and MSFC.

¶12

Ratio / Principle

Leave to withdraw the Interim Application was granted to the Applicant, together with liberty to pursue the remedy for recovery of arbitration fees against SICOM and MSFC.

¶16

Key takeaways

The time taken in prosecuting this proceeding up to the date of the order stands excluded from any subsequent proceedings the Applicant may undertake against SICOM and MSFC for recovery of the arbitral fees.ratio¶17
The Judge remarked that it was a very unfortunate situation that SICOM and MSFC, both being public sector undertakings, had not made payment of arbitration fees in terms of the arbitral award.obiter¶17

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (OOCJ), single bench of Arif S. Doctor, J. - Interim Application No. 3883 of 2025 in Company Petition No. 200 of 2014 (Applicant: Hemant Vishwasrao Chavan; Petitioner: SICOM Limited; Respondents including Shree Marathwada Paper Mills Pvt. Ltd.). The Applicant had sought reliefs concerning arbitration fees payable by SICOM and MSFC in terms of an arbitral award which, in the Court's reading, placed the fee burden on the respondents to the arbitration (SICOM and MSFC). After hearing the matter at substantial length, the Judge indicated he was not inclined to grant the reliefs sought. Learned counsel then withdrew the Interim Application; the withdrawal was accepted with (i) liberty to pursue recovery of the arbitration fees against SICOM and MSFC, and (ii) exclusion of the time spent prosecuting this proceeding from any future recovery proceedings against them. The Judge also noted, as regrettable, the failure of the two public sector undertakings to pay the arbitration fees in terms of the award. Order dated 22nd December 2025; corrected/modified per speaking to the minutes of the order dated 5th January 2026.

¶1

90-IA-3883-2025 (SPEAKING).DOC

¶2

1/2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

INTERIM APPLICATION NO.3883 OF 2025

¶5

¶6

COMPANY PETITION NO.200 OF 2014

¶7

Hemant Vishwasrao Chavan ...Applicant In the matter between: SICOM Limited ...Petitioner Versus

¶8

Shree Marathwada Paper Mills Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. ...Respondents

¶9

Mr. Kunal Mehta a/w Mr. Robin Fernandes, Mr. Sukrit Parashar, Ms. Lillyan Thangkhiew & Mr. Aditya Shinde i/b Vesta Legal, for the Applicant. Mr. Jamsheed Master a/w Mr. Aniket Worlikar, for Respondent No.2. Mr. Ashok Patil, Respondent No.2, present. Mr. Sunil Kadam, for SICOM & MSFC. Mr. Rushabh Sheth (through V.C.), for the Official Liquidator. Mr. Satyajit Roul, Official Liquidator, present. Dr. J. P. Gautam, Dy. Official Liquidator, present.

¶10

CORAM : ARIF S. DOCTOR, J. DATE : 22nd DECEMBER 2025

¶11

P.C.

¶12

After this matter was heard at substantial length, and I had indicated to learned counsel for the Applicant that I was not inclined to grant the reliefs sought for, as to my mind the arbitral award makes it clear that the arbitration fees have to be borne by the Respondents in the arbitration, namely SICOM and MSFC.

¶13

Learned counsel for the Applicant then, at this stage, sought leave to withdraw the Interim Application. He, however, prayed for liberty to pursue the

¶14

Vaibhav Note: This order is corrected/modified as per Speaking to the Minutes of the order dated 5th January 2026.

¶15

2/2 90-IA-3883-2025 (SPEAKING).DOC

¶16

remedy for recovery of arbitration fees against SICOM and MSFC. The liberty as prayed for is granted.

¶17

Apart from noting the very unfortunate situation that SICOM and MSFC, both being public sector undertakings, have not made payment of arbitration fees in terms of the arbitral award, it is also clarified that the time taken in prosecuting this proceeding up to today shall stand excluded from any proceedings that the Applicant should desire to undertake against SICOM and MSFC for recovery of the arbitral fees.

¶18

The Interim Application is disposed of.

¶19

[ARIF S. DOCTOR, J.]

¶20

th January 2026.

¶21

Vaibhav Note: This order is corrected/modified as per Speaking to the Minutes of the order dated 5

Hemant Vishwasrao Chavan v. Sicom Limited.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hemant Vishwasrao Chavan v. Sicom Limited.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Indus Towers Limited vs the Official Liquidator of Etisalat Db Telecom Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.

Beacon Trusteeship Ltd. vs Exquisite Shelters Pvt. Ltd. and 11 Ors.

Atlas Plastic vs Controller of Patents and Designs

Deepak G Ambardekar and Anr. vs Official Liquidator of Vir Rubber Products Pvt. Ltd. and 2 Ors.

Deepak G Ambardekar and Anr. vs Official Liquidator of Vir Rubber Products Pvt. Ltd. and 2 Ors.

Bansal International vs the Abhyudaya Co. Operative Bank Ltd.