Allowed

M/s.Balaji Industries, Represented by its partner Chauhan Laljibhai Jeetyubhai, v. M/s.Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd, Kg Point, 1st Florr, Koktak House

Madras HC25 Aug 2020A/1023/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed an application to dispense with the production of the original impugned arbitral award, permitting the petitioner to rely on a photograph/copy. The order preserved the respondent's rights and allowed the court to consider any variations between the original and the copy filed.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed to dispense with production of the original arbitral award; permitted reliance on filed copy subject to checking for variations.

M/s.Balaji Industries, Represented by its partner Chauhan… — Arbitration | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

A.No.1023 of 2020 in OP.No.25866 of 2020 (Filing No.)

¶2

A.No.1023 of 2020 in

¶3

OP.No.25866 of 2020

¶4

(Filing No.)

¶5

M.SUNDAR.J.,

¶6

Read this in conjunction with and in continuation of earlier proceedings

¶7

dated 12.08.2020.

¶8

Adverting to earlier proceedings, Mr.Pranav Jain, learned counsel on record for the applicant/petitioner submits that a better affidavit has since been filed.

¶9

Prayer in the captioned application is as follows:

¶10

'............. to dispense with the production of original copy of the ex-parte Impugned arbitral award dated 26^th November, 2019 passed by Sole Arbitrator, in Arbitration Case No.KB B DB 119/2019......'

¶11

Learned counsel submits that inter alia the core reason owing to which prayer in instant application is sought, is articulated in paragraph 4 of the better affidavit and the same reads as follows:

¶12

'4. I further state that the arbitration award copy was served on me but subsequently the manager of my office who received the original copy of the award has resigned from the

¶13

1/3

¶14

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶15

A.No.1023 of 2020 in OP.No.25866 of 2020 (Filing No.)

¶16

job. And further due to Pandemic situation we are unable to communicate with our erstwhile manager.'

¶17

Considering the nature of the prayer in the instant application, having

¶18

perused the case file and having been satisfied that on facts and circumstances of this case, prayer can be acceded to albeit with a rider the following order is passed: Instant application is allowed albeit preserving the rights of the respondent to bring it to the notice of this Court, if there is any variations between the original impugned award and the photo copy of the impugned award, which has now been filed.

¶19

Application ordered on above terms.

¶20

25.08.2020

¶21

kmi

¶22

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶23

2/3

¶24

A.No.1023 of 2020 in OP.No.25866 of 2020 (Filing No.)

¶25

M.SUNDAR, J

¶26

kmi

¶27

A.No.1023 of 2020
in
OP.No.25866 of 2020
(Filing No.)

¶28

25.08.2020

¶29

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶30

3/3

M/s.Balaji Industries, Represented by its partner Chauhan Laljibhai Jeetyubhai, v. M/s.Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd, Kg Point, 1st Florr, Koktak House

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s.Balaji Industries, Represented by its partner Chauhan Laljibhai Jeetyubhai, v. M/s.Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd, Kg Point, 1st Florr, Koktak House

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S.Talera Logistics Vs M/S.Ford India Pvt.Ltd.

M/s.Uttam Industrial Engineering Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/s Sree Basaveshwar Sugar Ltd.

M/s. Income Tax Department, Tax Recovery Officer-2, Vs The Official Liquidator

Manjula Varshaney Vs Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd.

M/S.Svr Super Speciality Vs M/S.Reliance Capital Ltd.

The Official Liquidator Vs