Hsbc Pi Holding Mauritius Ltd. vs Avitel Post Studioz Limited — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Hsbc Pi Holding Mauritius Ltd. vs Avitel Post Studioz Limited — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Interim Application No. 5534 of 2025 allowed in terms of prayer clause (b): Applicant permitted to amend Commercial Execution Application No. 23 of 2024 in Arbitration Petition No. 833 of 2015 to the extent specified in Schedule I; amendments to be carried out within three weeks, amended proceedings to be served within two weeks thereafter with affidavit of service; award dated 27 September 2014 to be marked satisfied to the extent of Rs.84,10,70,417/-.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Applicant/Award Holder should be permitted to amend Commercial Execution Application No. 23 of 2024 (in Arbitration Petition No. 833 of 2015) to the extent specified in Schedule I, where the amendment merely seeks details and particulars of assets already disclosed by the Respondents. +1 more

Court's answer

Since the award has been directed to be marked satisfied to the extent of Rs.84,10,70,417/-, the Interim Application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (b), permitting amendment of Commercial Execution Application No. 23 of 2024 in Arbitration Petition No. 833 of 2015 to the extent specified in Schedule I.

Ratio / Principle

The award dated 27 September 2014 is to be marked as satisfied to the extent of Rs.84,10,70,417/-.

Key takeaways

The amendments are to be carried out within three weeks; the amended proceedings are to be served within two weeks thereafter; and an appropriate affidavit of service is to be filed.ratio¶26

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Abhay Ahuja, J.), by order dated 1 December 2025, allowed Interim Application No. 5534 of 2025 in Commercial Execution Application No. 23 of 2024 (Arbitration Petition No. 833 of 2015), filed by HSBC PI Holding (Mauritius) Ltd., Award Holder/Decree Holder, against Avitel Post Studioz Ltd. & Ors. The Court first directed that the award dated 27 September 2014 be marked as satisfied to the extent of Rs.84,10,70,417/-, addressing the Respondents' concern that satisfaction had not been recorded for amounts already received by the Applicant. Noting that the proposed amendment merely sought details and particulars of assets already disclosed by the Respondents and forming part of the Schedule, to which Respondents' counsel had no objection, the Court allowed the amendment in terms of prayer clause (b)/Schedule I. Amendments were to be carried out within three weeks, amended proceedings served within two weeks thereafter, and an affidavit of service filed.

111-IA-5534-2025.doc

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

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 5534 OF 2025 IN

COMMERCIAL EXECUTION APPLICATION NO. 23 OF 2024

HSBC PI HOLDING (MAURITIUS) LTD. )...APPLICANT

IN THE MATTER OF

HSBC PI HOLDING (MAURITIUS) LTD. )...AWARD HOLDER

V/s.

AVITEL POST STUDIOZ LIMITED AND OTHERS )...RESPONDENTS

Mr.Rohan Rajadhyaksha a/w. Ms.Priyanka Shetty, Ms.Nafisa Khandeparkar, Mr.Ayush Chaddha, Mr.Tejas Raghav i/by AZB & Partners, Advocate for the Applicant / Award Holder / Decree Holder. Mr.Gaurang Mehta and Ms.Vidhi Dharia a/w. Mr.Bharat Jadhav i/by Enact Legal, Advocate for the Respondents.

CORAM : ABHAY AHUJA, J. DATE : 1^st DECEMBER 2025

P.C. :

This matter was kept back in the morning session as Mr.Mehta, learned Counsel, was to obtain instructions with respect to the amount to be marked as satisfied on the award.

ARTI VILAS KHATATE

Digitally signed by ARTI VILAS KHATATE Date: 2025.12.02 20:13:20 +0530

When the matter is called out in the afternoon session, Mr.Bharat Jadhav, learned Counsel, appears on behalf of the Respondents and avk 1/3

111-IA-5534-2025.doc

submits that Mr.Mehta is on the way. Mr.Rohan Rajadhyaksha, learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant submits that he has the amount from the reply filed by the Respondent viz. paragraph 4(a).

Accordingly, the award dated 27^th September 2014 be marked as satisfied to the extent of Rs.84,10,70,417/-.

As regards the application for amendment is concerned, Mr.Rajadhyaksha has submitted that the said amendment only seeks the details and particulars of the assets which already form part of the Schedule as disclosed by the Respondents.

Mr.Mehta in the morning session had no objection to the same except that he was concerned that the award has not been marked satisfied with respect to the amounts that have already been received by the Applicant, which has been directed to be done as abvove.

Having heard the learned Counsel, this Court is of the view that since now the aforesaid order directing that the award be marked satisfied to the extent of Rs.84,10,70,417/-, the Interim Application be allowed in terms of prayer clause (b) which reads thus :

avk 2/3

111-IA-5534-2025.doc

“(b) this Hon’ble Court be pleased to allow the Applicant to amend Commercial Execution Application No.23 of 2024 in Arbitration Petition No. 833 of 2015, to the extent specified in Schedule I annexed hereto.”

Let the amendments be carried out within a period of three weeks and the amended proceedings be served in two weeks thereafter and an appropriate Affidavit of service be filed.

The Interim Application stands allowed and disposed as above.

(ABHAY AHUJA, J.)

avk 3/3