Bombay High Court
M/S. Ucn Cable Network Pvt. Ltd., ... vs Pradip Deshmukh, Director, Ucn ... on 20 July, 2016
Bench: Z.A. Haq
1 mca551.16
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
MISCELLANEOUS CIVIL APPLICATION NO.551/2016
1. M/s. UCN Cable Network Pvt. Ltd.,
Nagpur, through its Directors :
(a) Ashutosh Jayant Kane,
(b) Jagdish Paliya,
(c) Ajay Tulsiram Khamankar
5th Floor, Mile Stone Building,
12, Ramdaspeth, Nagpur - 10.
2. UCN City Cable Network
(Akola) Pvt. Ltd. having registered
office at 5th Floor, Mile Stone Building,
12, Ramdaspeth, Nagpur - 10, through
its Directors.
(a) Ashutosh Jayant Kane,
(b) Jagdish Paliya,
(c) Ajay Tulsiram Khamankar
5th Floor, Mile Stone Building,
12th Ramdaspeth, Nagpur - 10.
3. Ashutosh Jayant Kane,
4. Jagdish Paliya,
5. Ajay Tulsiram Khamankar
Directors, UCN City Cable Network
(Akola) Pvt. Ltd. having registered
office at 5th Floor, Mile Stone Building
12, Ramdaspeth, Nagpur - 10. ..Applicants.
..VS..
Pradip Deshmukh,
Director, UCN City Channel Cable
Network (Akola) Pvt. Ltd.,
Shri Utsav Sankul, Gandhi Chowk,
Akola. ..Non-applicant.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Shri A.C. Dharmadhikari, Advocate for the applicants.
Shri H.R. Gadhia, Advocate for the non-applicant.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
::: Uploaded on - 27/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 10:03:35 :::
2 mca551.16
CORAM : Z.A.HAQ, J.
DATED : 20.7.2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Heard Shri A.C. Dharmadhikari, Advocate for the applicants and Shri H.R.
Gadhia, Advocate for the non-applicant.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.
3.
This is an application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996 praying that an Arbitrator be appointed to resolve the dispute
between the parties.
The facts on record show that the dispute exists between the parties.
Clause 6(e) of the agreement dated 1 st May, 2008 between the present
applicant No.1 and non-applicant provides that the dispute between the parties
arising out of or in relation to the agreement shall be resolved by the parties mutually
within 15 days and if the dispute is not resolved then the dispute shall be resolved by
sole Arbitrator to be appointed as per the provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation
Act, 1996. Another agreement dated 1 st April, 2010 between the non-applicant and
the applicant No.2 also contains Clause 11 which provides that the dispute between
the parties shall be referred to mutually agreed Arbitrator. Thus, the dispute
between the parties is required to be resolved by an Arbitrator.
The claim made by the applicant cannot be said to be a stale claim. This
Court has jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present application.
3 mca551.16
The only point which is required to be considered is about the venue of
arbitration.
The learned Advocate for the non-applicant has submitted that the
arbitration has to be at Akola and not at Nagpur. The learned Advocate has
submitted that the agreement dated 1 st May, 2008 between the applicant No.1 and
non-applicant provided that the venue of arbitration shall be at Nagpur, however, the
agreement dated 1st April, 2010 which is between the non-applicant and the applicant
No.2 supersedes earlier agreement dated 1 st May, 2008 and the subsequent
agreement dated 1st April, 2010 does not provide for the venue of arbitration. It is
submitted that the dispute relates to the business at Akola and, therefore, it would be
appropriate that the venue of arbitration is at Akola.
In my view, considering Clause 6(e) of the agreement dated 1 st May, 2008
it would be appropriate to appoint an Arbitrator at Nagpur and the objection raised
on behalf of the non-applicant that the venue of arbitration should be at Akola can be
considered by the learned Arbitrator.
4. Hence, the following order:
(i) Shri M.N. Gilani, former Judge of this Court is appointed as an Arbitrator
to resolve the dispute between the parties.
(ii) The applicants shall deposit Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs. One Lakh Only) and the
non-applicant shall deposit Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs. One Lakh Only) within six weeks
towards the security of fees of learned Arbitrator.
This amount shall be kept with the Registry till the arbitration
4 mca551.16
proceedings culminate.
(iii) The applicants and the non-applicant shall directly pay the fees of the
learned Arbitrator.
(iv) The applicants shall deposit Rs.10,000/- (Rs. Ten Thousand Only) with
the Registry of this Court within six weeks towards the processing charges.
Rule is made absolute in the above terms.
In the circumstances, the parties to bear their costs.
ig
JUDGE
Tambaskar.
5 mca551.16
CERTIFICATE
" I certify that this Judgment/Order uploaded is a true and correct copy of
original signed Judgment/Order".
Uploaded By : N.V. Tambaskar. ig Uploaded On : 27.7.2016.
Personal Assistant.
