Central Bank of India vs Mphasis Limited — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Central Bank of India vs Mphasis Limited — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Chamber Order for restoration of the Petition granted as prayed, subject to payment of costs of Rs. 5,000/- to the Respondent; Petitioner to remove office objections and get the Petition registered/numbered strictly within two weeks from upload of the order, failing which it shall stand rejected under O.S.Rule 986; First Asstt. Master to revisit whether the Petition must be filed under commercial dispute.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Petition, rejected on 28.11.2025 under O.S.Rule 986 for non-compliance of office objections, should be restored. +1 more

Court's answer

Considering the contentions raised in the Additional Affidavit, the Applicant should get one opportunity to pursue the captioned Petition diligently.

Ratio / Principle

Subject to payment of costs of Rs. 5,000/- (Rs. Five Thousand Only) to the Respondent, the Chamber Order is granted as prayed.

Key takeaways

The Petitioner is to remove office objections and get the Petition registered and/or numbered strictly within two weeks from the date of uploading of the order, failing which the Petition shall stand rejected for non-compliance of office objections under O.S.Rule 986.ratio¶31
Mr. Dilip Gurav, First Asstt. Master, is requested to revisit whether the Petition is required to be filed under commercial dispute; if yes, such objection may be raised and the Petitioner is to take steps accordingly.ratio¶16

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Chamber Order (CHOL/736/2025) in Arbitration Petition ARBP(L)/27451/2025 - restoration of Petition rejected vide Order dated 28.11.2025 under O.S.Rule 986 for non-compliance of office objections - Applicant explained that office objections could not be removed within the stipulated two weeks as the Advocate was unwell - Respondent objected, contending the Petition should be registered as a Commercial Arbitration Petition - Held: the Applicant should get one opportunity to pursue the Petition diligently; Chamber Order granted as prayed subject to costs of Rs. 5,000/- to the Respondent; Petitioner to remove office objections and have the Petition registered/numbered strictly within two weeks from upload of the order, failing which it shall stand rejected under O.S.Rule 986; Mr. Dilip Gurav, First Asstt. Master, requested to revisit whether the Petition is required to be filed under commercial dispute and, if so, raise the objection for the Petitioner to take steps accordingly.

Before : Anil H. Laddhad Prothonotary and Senior Master

Date : 9^th January, 2026

CALLED FOR HEARING AND FINAL DISPOSAL :

) Ms. Rathina Maravarman, Advocate for Applicant 23. CHOL/736/2025 ) IN ) Mr. Jeyhaan Carnac a/w. Mr. Aaron Kevin ARBP(L)/27451/2025 ) Fernandes i/b. M/s. Mulla & Mulla CBC, Advocate

) Mr. Jeyhaan Carnac a/w. Mr. Aaron Kevin ) Fernandes i/b. M/s. Mulla & Mulla CBC, Advocate ) for Respondent

)

) P.C. : The present Chamber Order is taken out by ) the Applicant for restoration of Petition which was ) rejected vide Order dated 28.11.2025 under ) O.S.Rule 986 for non-compliance of office ) objections.

)

) Addl. Affidavit in support and Affidavit of Service ) are taken on record. )

) Heard Ld. Advocate for the Applicant. Perused ) Affidavit and Addl. Affidavit in support of ) Chamber Order. It is contended therein that vide ) conditional Order dated 28.11.2025, Applicant ) was directed to remove office objections within ) two weeks. However, as the Advocate was not ) feeling well, office objections could not be ) removed within time.

)

) Ld. Advocate for Respondent objected for ) restoration of captioned Petition, on the ground ) that present Petition should be registered as Commercial Arbitration Petition and submits that

) ) suitable order may be passed in the present Chamber Order.

)

)

Mr. Dilip Gurav, First Asstt. Master is requested to

) kindly revisit whether the aforesaid Petition is

) required to be filed under commercial dispute,

) and if yes, such objection may be raised and

) Petitioner to take steps accordingly.

)

) Considering the contentions raised in Addl. ) Affidavit, I am of the view that the Applicant

…. 2

…. Continued

Prothonotary and Senior Master Date : 9^th January, 2026

: 2 :

) should get one opportunity to pursue with the ) captioned Petition diligently.

)

) In view of above, subject to payment of cost of ) Rs. 5,000/- (Rs. Five Thousand Only) to ) Respondent, the present Chamber Order is ) granted as prayed and signed separately.

)

) The Petitioner to remove office objections on the ) Petition and get the same registered and/or ) numbered strictly within two weeks from the date ) of uploading of order, failing Petition to stand ) rejected for non-compliance of office objections under O.S.Rule 986.

)

Prothonotary & Senior Master

Date : 09.01.2026