Rajendra N.Mehta And Ors vs Prabhudas Lilladher Pvt.Ltd.And ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 12143 Bom

          Digitally
          signed by
GAURI     GAURI AMIT
          GAEKWAD
AMIT      Date:                                   1/3               905-APP-625-2005.doc
GAEKWAD   2022.11.29
          11:31:07
          +0530
                             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                 ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
                                       APPEAL NO.625 OF 2005
                                               WITH
                                 NOTICE OF MOTION NO.983 OF 2019
                                                IN
                                ARBITRATION PETITION NO.545 OF 2003

             Rajendra N. Mehta & Ors.               .....Appellants
                       Vs.
             Prabhudas Liladhar Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. .....Respondents
                                                 ----
             Mr. Yashesh Kamdar a/w. Ms. Yashvi Shah i/b. Nahush Shah Legal for
             appellants.
             Mr. Anand R. Pai for respondent no.1.
                                                 ----
                                                  CORAM : K. R. SHRIRAM &
                                                          KAMAL KHATA, JJ.

DATED : 25th NOVEMBER 2022

P.C. :

1 After the appeal was heard for some time, the primary issue

that came up for consideration is whether the learned Single Judge could

have, in the impugned order dated 2 nd May 2005 under Section 34 of the

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, modified the impugned award.

2 Mr. Kamdar submitted that the law is very clear that the

learned Single Judge could not have modified the award and should have

either set aside the award or refused to interfere. Mr. Pai for respondent

no.1, in all fairness and as an officer of the Court, stated that between the

time the appeal came to be admitted till date there are many judgments

which holds the view expressed by Mr. Kamdar that the award cannot be

Gauri Gaekwad 2/3 905-APP-625-2005.doc

modified under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

We must compliment Mr. Pai for making this very fair statement.

3 In view thereof, both counsel agree that the impugned order

dated 2nd May 2005 cannot be sustained. In view of this statement made by

Mr. Pai, Mr. Kamdar seeks leave of the Court to withdraw the appeal.

4 Appeal dismissed as withdrawn. No order as to costs.

5 The impugned order dated 2nd May 2005 is also quashed and

set aside.

6 There is also an interim application being Notice of Motion

No.983 of 2019 which is pending. The notice of motion has been taken out

in view of an order dated 1st November 2018 passed by this Court imposing

costs on respondents and also making certain remarks against the advocate

for respondents. Mr. Pai states on instructions that the cost of Rs.25,000/-

imposed has already been paid to Maharashtra State Legal Services

Authority and is only seeking expunging the remarks against the advocate.

7 The remarks have been made by the Court since the advocate

did not remain present on couple of occasions and the junior advocate, who

appeared, was unable to go on with the matter. The Court also felt the

matter being very old, respondents' advocates should have been more keen

to assist the Court in disposing the matter. In the affidavit in support of the

notice of motion, the advocate has explained why the advocate Mr. Deepak

Gauri Gaekwad 3/3 905-APP-625-2005.doc

Sharma could not remain present since on those dates he was away in

Rajasthan to attend two family weddings.

8 In view of the explanation offered in the affidavit in support,

we expunge the remarks made in the order dated 1 st November 2018

against the said advocate.

9               Notice of motion accordingly disposed.



(KAMAL KHATA, J.)                                        (K. R. SHRIRAM, J.)




Gauri Gaekwad