Manisha Rambhau Dandwate Padmini ... vs Nishinagdha Sudhakar Mahajan ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 7406 Bom

                                                                          976_WP1057216.odt


             
                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY




                                                                                   
                            BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                            WRIT PETITION NO. 10572 OF 2016




                                                           
    Manisha Rambhau Dandwate
    @ Padmini Pratap Patil
    Age: 40 years, Occu.: Business,




                                                          
    R/o c/o Pratap Patil, Plot No. 203,
    Behind Raodeo Hospital, N-1, CIDCO,
    Aurangabad.                                                   ..PETITIONER




                                                
                   VERSUS
    Nishingdha Sudhakar Mahajan     
    @ Archana Ashok Patil
    Age: 46 years, Occu.: Business,
    R/o Nishigandh, 18/4, Sector C-5,
                                   
    Aurangabad.                                                   ..RESPONDENT

                                        ....
    Mr. S.V. Natu, Advocate for petitioner.
           


    Mr. A.A. Yadkikar, Advocate for respondent.
                                        ....
        



                                          CORAM :  T.V. NALAWADE, J.

DATED : 16th DECEMBER, 2016

ORAL JUDGMENT :

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard both sides by

consent for final disposal.

2. The present proceeding is filed to challenge the ruling given by

the Arbitrator in claim made by respondent against the petitioner. The

claimant is under cross-examination and during the cross-examination,

1 / 3

976_WP1057216.odt

question was put to her with regard to another concern like Super

Packwel. The present petitioner wants to show that Super Packwell is

proxy firm of Suvarna Packaging. The witness answered as :-

"i cannot answer of this question as respondent has no concern with Super Packwell."

3. After the aforesaid answer given by claimant, learned Counsel

for present petitioner requested the Arbitrator to decide the relevance of

the matter. It can be said that it was mistake on the part of the learned

Counsel for petitioner to take such ruling at that stage. Due to this

insistence of learned Counsel for petitioner, the Arbitrator gave ruling

that questions put with regard to Super Packwell have no relevance with

matter which is under consideration before the Arbitrator which is in

respect of Suvarna Packaging.

4. It is the defence of the present petitioner that Super Packwell

is the proxy firm of Suvarna Packaging and due to the aforesaid ruling

given by the Arbitrator Tribunal, his one of the defence is already

decided. The Arbitrator ought not to have given such ruling when

evidence is not given. There will be evidence of present petitioner in the

matter and only after taking evidence of both sides, this point can be

decided including the relevancy of the aforesaid question put to the

2 / 3

976_WP1057216.odt

claimant during the cross-examination. Thus the ruling needs to be

removed from the record so that the point can still kept open. Only for

doing that this Court holds that petition needs to be allowed.

5. The submissions made show that recording of evidence of

another witness is started. The learned Counsel for original claimant /

respondent submits that claimant is under cross-examination for ten

months and cross-examination runs into 70 pages. He requests the Court

to see that harassment of claimant is put to an end in some way. He

requested for giving direction to expedite the matter. Other side has not

objection to it. Both sides agree to cooperate the Arbitral Tribunal.

6. In view of the submissions made by both sides, this Court

holds that Arbitrator needs to decide the matter within six months from

the date of receipt of this order. In the result, petition is allowed.

Aforesaid ruling given by the Arbitral Tribunal is hereby set aside. The

petitioner is allowed to further cross-examine the witness. Learned

Counsel for petitioner submitted that he will see that cross-examination is

completed as soon as possible. Rule made absolute in those terms.

( T.V. NALAWADE, J. ) SSD

3 / 3