Bombay High Court
Villayati Ram Mittal vs Schindler India Pvt. Ltd on 5 November, 2019
Author: G. S. Patel
Bench: G. S. Patel
15-CARAP375-19.DOC
Shephali
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
IN ITS COMMERCIAL DIVISION
COMM ARBITRATION APPLICATION NO. 375 OF 2019
Villayati Ram Mittal ...Applicant
Versus
Schindler India Pvt Ltd ...Respondent
Mr Chaitanyaa Bhandarkar, for the Applicant.
Mr Chirag Mody, with Ms Prachi Garg & Ms Saloni Shah, i/b DSK
Legal, for the Respondent.
CORAM: G. S. Patel, J.
DATED: 5th November 2019 PC:-
1. The application is thoroughly misconceived. It is ostensibly filed under Section 1111 oi the Arbitration and Coonciliation Act 1199..
The contract in question was ior the installation oi an elevator. A copy oi the agreement is irom page 23 onwards. It is today contended that this contract was with a partnership firm called Villayati Ram Mittal. What is curious is that the Respondent, Schindler India Private Limited, invoked arbitration under this very agreement ior this very elevator at this very site against one "Villayati Ram Mittal Pvt Ltd". It filed an Arbitration Application No. 282 oi 2011.. Prior to this, it issued a notice which was in the name oi M/s. Villayati Ram Mittal "through its directors". The Page 1 of 3 5th November 2019 ::: Uploaded on - 06/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2019 23:58:08 ::: 15-CARAP375-19.DOC response to this notice came irom M/s. Srivastava and Coo. saying they were representing M/s. Villayati Ram Mittal "through its directors" and iurther saying that they had instructions irom M/s. Villayati Ram Mittal Pvt Ltd. It was thus that the private limited company was made a respondent to Schindler India Pvt Ltd's Arbitration Application. On that application, SJ Kathawalla J made an order on 115th December 2011. appointing an Advocate as a Sole Arbitrator. The learned Sole Arbitrator entered upon a reierence to this Arbitration. Villayati Ram Mittal Pvt Ltd was the Respondent to this Petition. It appeared. It led the evidence oi one Vinod Sarai. There was extensive cross-examination. It is not disputed that at least one oi the partners oi the so-called firm, one Surinder Kumar Mittal, the person who has afrmed the present Petition, was at all relevant times a director oi this company. Similarly, Vinod Sarai, the witness on behali oi the private limited company in arbitration, was a partner oi the partnership firm.
2. Uniortunately ior the Mittal entities, the arbitration resulted in an Award oi 30th November 20118 against them inter alia rejecting a quite extraordinary Coounter Colaim and making an award oi costs. The private limited company filed a challenge petition under Section 34. That was dismissed. It is, thereiore, indebted to Schindler India Private Limited in the amount oi Award. It is aiter the Award that the present application was filed by the partnership firm. Obviously, this is nothing but an attempt to either coniuse matters or to irustrate eniorcement oi an existing arbitral award which was iully contested and a challenge to which iailed. It is inconceivable that ior the same contract, the same work and in Page 2 of 3 5th November 2019 ::: Uploaded on - 06/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2019 23:58:08 ::: 15-CARAP375-19.DOC respect oi which there is already an Award there can be a second round like this.
3. This is, oi course, quite apart irom the iact that even under Section 4 oi the Arbitration and Coonciliation Act, there is undoubtedly a waiver by the present Applicant.
4. The Coommercial Arbitration Application is dismissed.
5. For the present, no order oi costs.
(G. S. Patel, J) Page 3 of 3 5th November 2019 ::: Uploaded on - 06/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2019 23:58:08 :::