Bombay High Court
Momentum Consulting Pvt. Ltd., ... vs Saffron Industries Ltd., Nagpur ... on 19 January, 2018
Bench: A.S. Chandurkar
cra129.17
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
Civil Revision Application No. 129 of 2017
01. Momentum Consulting Pvt. Ltd.,
through Authorized Signatory
& Director, Shri Anuj Mehra,
having its Office at 6A, 6B,
Lentin Chambers, Fourth Floor,
Dalal Street, Fort, Mumbai.
02. Shri Anuj Mehra,
aged - Major,
occupation - Business,
resident of 501, Ashishwang
Co-operative Housing Society
Ltd., Pochkandwala Road,
Worli, Mumbai-400 025. ..... Applicants
Org. Deft. Nos.1 & 2
Versus
Saffron Industries Ltd.,
[formerly known as Madhyadesh
Papers Ltd.],
having its office at Navbharat
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/01/2018 02:02:03 :::
cra129.17
2
Bhavan, Chhatrapati Square,
Wardha Road,
Nagpur-15, through its
Managing Director Shri Nimish
Maheshwari. ..... Non-applicant
*****
Mr. Nikhil Padhye, Adv., for the Applicants.
Mr. P. P. Salunke, Adv., for non-applicant.
*****
CORAM : A.S. CHANDURKAR, J.
Date : 19th January, 2018
ORAL JUDGMENT:
01. Admit. Heard finally with consent of counsel for the parties.
02. The order dated 16th September, 2017 passed on an
application filed under Section 8 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act,
1996 [for short, "the said Act"] rejecting the same is the subject-
matter of challenge in the present Civil Revision Application.
03. According to the applicants, an Agreement was entered into
on 5th April, 2013 along with the non-applicant by which negotiations
were to be held for compromising a proposal with the secured lender -
cra129.17
State Bank of India. On such negotiations being successful, the
applicants were to receive Success Fees of Rs.25,00,000-00. The said
agreement contained a clause for referring disputes to arbitration. As
the negotiations were successful, the applicants demanded the
Success Fees from the non-applicant. On the same not being paid, the
applicants filed a Summary Suit at the City Civil Court, Mumbai. In
those proceedings, the non-applicant put forth the aforesaid
agreement along with the arbitration clause as defence. On that basis,
those proceedings were referred for arbitration.
04. Subsequently, the non-applicant filed a suit seeking
recovery of Rs.4,56,124-00 from the applicants. On being noticed, the
applicants relying on the same agreement filed an application under
Section 8 of the said Act. By the impugned order, that application has
been rejected.
05. Heard respective counsel for the parties. Shri Salunke,
learned counsel for the non-applicant on instructions submits that the
non-applicant is willing to go before the Arbitrator for adjudication of
the claim made by the non-applicant in Regular Civil Suit No. 1354 of
2016. Considering this statement made on behalf of the non-applicant,
the following order is passed:-
cra129.17
[a] The order dated 16th September, 2017 passed below
Exh.13 in Regular Civil Suit No. 1354 of 2016 is set
aside. The application filed below Exh.13 is allowed
and the proceedings in Regular Civil Suit No. 1354 of
2016 are referred for arbitration. Needless to mention
that these arbitration proceedings would be the same
which would be undertaken pursuant to orders in
Summary Suit No. 124 of 2015.
[b] The respective contentions of the parties are kept
open.
[c] As a result of this order, the proceedings in Regular
Civil Suit No. 1354 of 2016 are deemed to have come
to an end.
06. The Civil Revision Application is allowed in aforesaid terms
with no order as to costs.
Judge
-0-0-0-0-
|hedau|
