Bombay High Court
Ajit Singh vs Volkswagen Finance Pvt. Ltd. And 2 Ors on 23 December, 2021
Author: G.S.Kulkarni
Bench: G.S.Kulkarni
Digitally signed
VIDYA by VIDYA
SURESH AMIN
SURESH Date:
AMIN 2021.12.24
13:58:45 +0530
906.IA398_2020.doc
Vidya Amin
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 398 OF 2020
IN
COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 691 OF 2021
Ajit Singh ... Applicant/Petitioner
V/s.
Volkswagen Finance Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. ... Respondents
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 30374 OF 2021
IN
COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION PETITION (L) NO. 30365 OF 2021
(Not on board, taken on board)
Mandhir Singh Todd ... Applicant/Petitioner
V/s.
Volkswagen Finance Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. ... Respondents
Ms. Ankita Singhania and Saif Dingankar i/b. Mr. Ashok Dhanuka
a/w. Ashish Jain for the applicant/petitioner.
Mr. Padmakar S. Garad i/b. S.G. Legal & Associates for respondent
no. 1.
CORAM : G.S.KULKARNI, J.
DATE : 23 December, 2021 P.C.:
1. Having considered the contentions as urged on behalf of the petitioners/applicants that the learned arbitrator was unilaterally appointed and without the consent from the petitioners/applicants proceeded to adjudicate the disputes and pass an award, despite the opposition to such unilateral appointment, in my opinion, would be contrary to the decision of well settled principles of law as seen from the decisions of Supreme Court in TRF Ltd. vs. Energo Engineering Projects Ltd. 1 and Perkins Eastman Architects 1 (2017) 8 SCC 377 1/2
906.IA398_2020.doc DPC & Anr. vs. HSCC (India) Ltd.2 and as held by this Court in Meenu Arora & Ors. vs. Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Ltd. in Commercial Arbitration Petition No. 396 of 2017 decided on 4 March, 2019 and as also in the decision rendered by Justice G.S. Patel in the case of respondent itself in Tarun Kapoor & Pawan Kapoor vs. Volkswagen Finance (P) Ltd. in Commercial Arbitration Petition No. 1497 of 2019 decided on 30 January, 2020.
2. Learned counsel for the respondent is not in a position to make any opposition to the above issues, which in my opinion go to the root of the legality of the award.
3. In the aforesaid circumstances, the parties are required to be heard. The impugned award cannot be permitted to operate. There shall be ad-interim stay to the implementation and operation of the award till the next date. Ordered accordingly.
4. Reply affidavit to the Interim Application and petition be filed by the respondents.
5. Stand over to 10 January, 2022.
6. Parties to act on the authenticated copy of the order.
(G.S.KULKARNI, J.) 2 AIR 2020 SC 59 2/2