Appeal (L) No. 849 of 2015 in Arbitration Petition No. 715 of 2014. Case: Home Care Retail Marts Private Limited Vs Haresh N. Sanghavi. High Court of Bombay (India)
| Case Number | Appeal (L) No. 849 of 2015 in Arbitration Petition No. 715 of 2014 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Rajiv Kumar, Senior Advocate, K.G. Munshi and Shivani Khanna i/b FZB & Associates and For Respondents: S.U. Kamdar, Senior Advocate and Y.M. Chaudhari i/b Omkar Kulkarni, Advs. |
| Judges | Anoop V. Mohta and A. A. Sayed, JJ. |
| Issue | Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Sections 16, 17, 34, 37, 37(3), 9 |
| Judgement Date | May 04, 2016 |
| Court | High Court of Bombay (India) |
Judgment:
A. A. Sayed, J.
-
The above Appeal is filed under section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Arbitration Act') challenging the orders dated 28 July 2015 and 23 October 2015 passed by the learned Single Judge in Arbitration Petition No. 715 of 2014 filed under section 34 of the Arbitration Act. The impugned order dated 28 July 2015 reads as follows:
Admit. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent waives service.
2. Affidavit-in-reply, if any, shall be filed within four weeks from today. Rejoinder, if any, shall be filed within two weeks from the date of service of affidavit-in-reply. Parties are at liberty to file compilation of documents within eight weeks from today. Hearing of the petition is expedited.
3. In view of the learned arbitrator having rendered a final award rejecting the claims made by the petitioner herein, the interim order passed by the learned arbitrator under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act duly modified by the Supreme Court stands vacated.
-
The aforesaid impugned order dated 28 July 2015 was corrected upon an Application by the Applicant for speaking to the minutes, by the order dated 23 October 2015 which reads as follows:
Matter is placed on board for speaking to the minutes of the order dated 28th July, 2015. In paragraph (3) of the order, it is clarified that in view of the learned arbitrator having rendered a final award rejecting the claims made by the petitioner herein, the interim order passed by the learned arbitrator under section 17 of the Arbitration Act duly modified by this court by an order dated 11th November, 2011 and further modified by the Supreme Court by an order dated 30th January, 2012 has come to an end. Order dated 28th July, 2015 stands corrected accordingly.
-
Learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent raised a preliminary objection and submitted that the Appeal is not maintainable and therefore, the Appeal ought not to be entertained and is required to be dismissed. He submitted that no Appeal lies against an order under section 34 of the Arbitration Act where such order does not set aside or refuses to set aside the Award. The learned Senior Counsel contended that the impugned orders do not set aside or refuse to set aside the Award, hence, the Appeal is not maintainable.
-
Learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant on the other hand submitted that the impugned orders passed by the learned Single Judge are in the nature of refusing to grant...
To continue reading
Request your trial