S. N. Damani Developers Llp vs Kashyap K. Mehta And 3 Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 1353 Bom

                                                              1.carbpl.8417.2020.doc

dik
            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                 ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
                      IN ITS COMMERCIAL DIVISION
                Digitally
                signed by
                Dhanappa
      Dhanappa I. Koshti
      I. Koshti Date:
                2021.01.20
                17:48:35

                             COMM. ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 27 OF 2021
                +0530




                S.N. Damani Developers LLP                   ... Petitioner
                      Vs
                Kashyap K. Mehta & Ors.                      ... Respondents


                Mr. Vishal Kanade a/w Mrs. Shamima Taly, Aziz Mohammed,
                Vithoba Masurkar i/b S. Mahomadbhai & Co. for the Petitioner.
                Mr. Sharan Jagtiani, sr. counsel a/w Mr. Yash Momoya a/w Ms.
                Surbhi Agrawal and Munaf Virjee, Mr. Rushabh Parekh i/b ABH
                Law LLP for Respondent No.1.
                Mr. Chirag Mody a/w Ms. Asmita Goradia i/b Aagam Doshi for
                Respondent No.2.
                Mr. Rajiv Narula i/b Jhangiani Narula & Associates for
                Respondent No.3.
                Mr. Siddhesh Bhole a/w Krupashree Sawant and Kshitija Bhosale
                i/b SSB Legal and Advisory for Respondent No.4.

                                        CORAM : B.P. COLABAWALLA, J.

DATE : 20th JANUARY, 2021

P.C. :

1 After this matter was argued for some time, Mr.

Kanade, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, limited

his challenge to the interim order of the Tribunal only to the

extent of the disclosure of the assets and that too only against

respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein. Mr. Jagtiani, the learned senior

counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 and Mr. Modi, the

1.carbpl.8417.2020.doc

learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 stated

that without prejudice to their rights and contentions and

without admitting anything, their respective clients are willing to

disclose their assets on oath before the Arbitrator. They however

submitted that considering the arbitral tribunal has rejected the

prayer of the petitioner herein for an injunction, and which is not

being interfered with by me, respondent No.1 and respondent

No.2 would disclose the details of their bank accounts but without

the credit/debit balance in those accounts. On the other hand Mr.

Kanade submitted that if respondent Nos.1 and 2 are making the

disclosures it should be a full disclosure and not a partial

disclosure as sought for.

2 I have heard the learned counsel for parties on this

limited aspect. It is not in dispute that the petitioners herein had

applied for attachment before judgment, a deposit order, as well

as for an injunction restraining all the respondents from

disposing of their assets. The Arbitral Tribunal by a lengthy and

well reasoned order declined to grant any relief to the petitioner.

In these circumstances, I think the request made by Mr. Jagtiani

seems to be fair. In the impugned order, respondent Nos.1 and 2

1.carbpl.8417.2020.doc

were not even directed to make any disclosure. Despite this and

to cut this matter short, Mr. Jagtiani and Mr. Modi, on taking

instructions, submitted that their clients are willing to disclose

the bank accounts but not willing to disclose the moneys lying in

those bank accounts.

3 In these circumstances, I direct respondent Nos.1 and

2 to disclose all their assets including the bank accounts before

the learned Arbitrator by fling an appropriate affdavit and

serve a copy of the same on the advocates for the petitioner

herein. The disclosure affdavit shall set out the status of the

properties disclosed including any encumbrances thereon, if any.

It is clarifed that though the bank account details shall be

disclosed in the said affdavit, respondent Nos.1 and 2 need not

disclose the credit/debit balances in those accounts. This

disclosure affdavit shall be fled within a period of four weeks

from today. It is clarifed that considering the injunction order

has already been refused by the Arbitral Tribunal and not

interfered with by this Court, the petitioner, in these set of

circumstances, will not be allowed to apply for an injunction order

again merely on the basis of the assets disclosed.

1.carbpl.8417.2020.doc

4 Considering that this is only an interim arrangement,

it is without prejudice to the rights and contentions of all the

parties. The Arbitration Petition is disposed of in the aforesaid

terms. No order as to costs.

5 This order shall be digitally signed by the Private

Secretory /Personal Assistant of this Court. All concerned shall act

on production by fax or e-mail of a digitally signed copy of this order.

(B.P. COLABAWALLA, J. )