Bombay High Court
Pravara Renewable Energy Ltd vs Padmashri Dr. Vitthalrao Vikhe ... on 29 April, 2022
Bench: G. S. Kulkarni
1 praecipe-conptl 12999-22 in carbpl 23525-21
Prajakta Vartak
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
IN ITS COMMERCIAL DIVISION
COMMERCIAL CONTEMPT PETITION (L.) NO.12999 OF 2022
IN
COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION PETITION (L.) NO.23525 OF 2021
Pravara Renewable Energy Ltd. ..Petitioner
Vs.
Padmashri Dr. Vitthalrao Vikhe Patil
Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. & Ors. ..Respondents
-----
Mr. Zal Andhyarijuna, Senior Advocate with Mr. Subhash Jadhav, Mr.
Amit Patil and Ms. Shruti Sardessai i/b. Parinam Law Associates for
Petitioner.
Mr. Kevic Setalvad, Senior Advocate with Mr. Kunal Vaishnav, Ms. Gauri
Joshi and Mr. Mandar Soman i/b. Ganesh & Co. for Respondents.
-----
CORAM : G.S. KULKARNI, J.
DATE : APRIL 29, 2022.
P.C.:
1. Not on board. Taken on board on petitioner's application.
2. Today's application is on the backdrop of the earlier two
applications as made by the petitioner alleging contempt of the order
dated 11 April, 2022 passed by this Court whereby the following
directions came to be made against the respondent(s):-
"(i) The petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (b), which
reads thus:
"b. That pending the hearing and final disposal of the arbitral
proceedings, making of the arbitral Award and until final
execution of the arbitral Award, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to
restrain the Respondent, its board of directors, promoters,
partners, employees, agents, representative and any one acting
on behalf of the Respondent, in any manner from entering the
premises of the Petitioner's Co-generation plant and from
carrying out any work/activity for the repairs/maintenance/
operation of the Petitioner Co-generation plant"
2 praecipe-conptl 12999-22 in carbpl 23525-21
(ii) The parties are directed to commence the arbitral proceedings
within a period of one month from today."
3. In paragraph 145 of the said order, in the facts and circumstances
of the case, the request for stay was refused. Paragraph 145 of the said
order reads thus:
"145. At this stage, Mr. Setalvad, learned senior counsel for the
respondent prays for stay of this order. However, considering the
peculiar and strong circumstances of the case and the paramount duty
of the Court to preserve and protect the rule of law, even in the
contractual sphere, a request for stay needs to be rejected. Also there
would be no prejudice whatsoever to the respondent or even for that
matter, to the interveners who are not even remotely connected with the
contractual dispute between the parties, if the petitioner under its
contractual rights operates and manages its own co-gen plant and/or its
assets. In any event merely because some time was taken to deliver the
judgment, which was on account of the immense pressure of work on
the Court, it can be no ground to accept Mr.Setalvad's request, when the
matter itself was argued for days together."
4. When yesterday an application on behalf of the petitioner was
made, the Court had requested Mr. Andhyarujina, learned senior
advocate for the petitioner, that the respondents be given a notice of
today's application. Accordingly, Mr. Setalvad on notice, represents the
respondents.
5. As noted above, the grievance of the petitioner is of non-
compliance of the order dated 11 April, 2022 passed by this Court. Mr.
Andhyarujina has pointed out that although an appeal was moved by
Respondent No.1 against the said order, the Division Bench has not
passed any order staying the operation of the directions as contained in
3 praecipe-conptl 12999-22 in carbpl 23525-21
the said order. It is his submission that the order passed by this Court
has subsisted and is operating from the day such order was passed and
as binding on the respondents, it mandated its compliance. His
grievance is that till date, which is almost 18 days, from the day such
order was passed, there is an intentional/deliberate non-compliance of
the directions by the respondents. It is his contention that the
respondent(s) are not those who would not understand the plain
consequence and mandate of the said orders.
6. Mr. Andhyarujina contends that serious prejudice is being caused
to the petitioner. He also points out that the Court has noted the
prejudice and the illegality of the actions of the respondents in so many
words in the said order dated 11 April, 2022 passed by this Court. It is
Mr. Andhyarujina's submission that the respondents have no respect for
the orders passed by this Court as also the respondents' conduct of non
compliance of the said order is glaringly contumacious.
7. On the other hand, Mr. Setalvad, learned senior counsel for the
respondents, on notice would not dispute Mr. Andhyarujina's submission
that the Division Bench has not stayed the operation of the order dated
11 April, 2022. His submission is that the appeal is subjudice before the
Division Bench and the Division Bench has suggested that an endeavour
be made to settle the disputes. Be that as it may, the law is well settled,
the Court would go only by the record and it clearly appears that there
4 praecipe-conptl 12999-22 in carbpl 23525-21
is no stay to the order dated 11 April, 2022 passed by this Court. The
hearing of today's application was passed over for about half an hour to
enable Mr. Setalvad to take instructions whether his client would comply
with the orders passed by this Court. Mr. Setalvad has returned to
submit that the instructing advocates could not get instructions. In my
prima facie opinion, it appears that there is no intention on the part of
the respondents to comply with the orders passed by the Court.
8. Accordingly, issue notice before admission to the respondents.
The respondents shall answer the Court as to why a show cause notice
to initiate contempt proceedings be not issued to the respondents for
having not complied with the directions of this court in its order dated
11 April, 2022.
9. Let a reply be placed on record on or before the adjourned the
date of hearing.
10. In the meantime, the respondents are directed to comply with the
order dated 11 April, 2022 passed by this Court.
11. All contentions of the parties on this proceeding are expressly kept
open.
12. Stand over to 04 May, 2022.
[G.S. KULKARNI, J.]
