Disposed¶14

Tata Capital Limited v. Tej Pal Choudhary

Bombay HC20 Apr 2026CARBP/294/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Tata Capital Limited v Tej Pal Choudhary; Bombay High Court Commercial Division; Arif S. Doctor J; 20 April 2026; Commercial Arbitration Petitions 294, 298, 330 of 2024; conversion of Section 9 interim-measure petitions into Section 17 applications before sole Arbitrator appointed 7 April 2026; respondent served but absent; interim orders continue until Section 17 orders; Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 Sections 9 and 17; petitions disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Permission to convert the three Section 9 Petitions into Applications under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to be pursued before the sole Arbitrator appointed on 7th April, 2026; interim orders granted earlier to continue operating until appropriate orders are passed in the Section 17 Applications. ¶14

Tata Capital Limited vs Tej Pal Choudhary — Arbitration | Bombay HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶14

Issue for consideration

Whether the pending Petitions, filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, may be converted into Applications under Section 17 of that Act so as to be pursued before the sole Arbitrator now appointed, in view of the Respondent's non-appearance despite service.

¶12

Court's answer

Having considered the submissions and noting the absence of the Respondent, the Petitions filed under Section 9 are permitted to be converted and shall be treated as Applications under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to enable the Petitioner to pursue them before the learned Arbitrator now appointed.

¶13

Ratio / Principle

The interim orders granted earlier shall continue to operate until appropriate orders are passed in the Applications under Section 17 of the Act.

¶13

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Commercial Division (Arif S. Doctor, J.; decided 20th April, 2026) - Tata Capital Limited v. Tej Pal Choudhary, Commercial Arbitration Petition Nos. 294, 298 and 330 of 2024. By order dated 7th April, 2026 this Court had appointed a sole Arbitrator; counsel tendered that order at the hearing. Although the Respondent was duly served, none appeared for him. Counsel requested that the Petitions, filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, be permitted to be converted into Applications under Section 17 of that Act so they could be pursued before the Arbitrator now appointed. Holding: considering the submissions and the Respondent's absence, the Petitions were permitted to be converted and were to be treated as Applications under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; the interim orders granted earlier were to continue to operate until appropriate orders were passed in those Section 17 Applications. The Petitions were disposed of accordingly. No precedent was cited; no monetary quantum was involved.

Tata Capital Limited v. Tej Pal Choudhary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tata Capital Limited v. Tej Pal Choudhary

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

Official Liquidator of Transpower Engineering Ltd. (in Liquidation) vs Metal Tubes and Rolling Mills (Petitioner)

Official Liquidator of Transpower Engineering Ltd. (in Liquidation) vs Metal Tubes and Rolling Mills (Petitioner)

Prashant Sudam Jagtap vs Chetan Vitthal Tupe

Intouch Leather House India Pvt. Ltd. Vs New Fancy Bags

Todi Mills vs Debanjan Chakrabertty Senior Examiner of Trade Marks

Tata Capital Limited vs Tej Pal Choudhary