Bombay High Court
Mr. Rahul Bhaskar Mhaske vs M/S. Gandhi And Associates Thr. Its ... on 5 February, 2020
Author: G.S. Patel
Bench: G.S. Patel
15-ARA32-18.DOC
Shephali
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
ARBITRATION APPEAL NO. 32 OF 2018
Rahul Bhaskar Mhaske ...Appellant
Versus
Gandhi & Associates, through its Partners ...Respondent
Mr Chaitanya Nikte, for the Appellant.
Mr Nitin P Deshpande, for Respondent No. 1.
CORAM: G.S. PATEL, J.
DATED: 5th February 2020 PC:-
1. The Arbitration Appeal assails an order dated 26th July 2018 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune dismissing a challenge by the present Appellant against the arbitral Award dated 10th April 2017. That Award was rendered by a sole arbitrator.
2. It appears that the learned Judge hearing the Section 34 Petition took a view that before the Arbitrator the present Appellant has pressed only the point of limitation and had given up all other grounds of opposition to the Statement of Claim. I am not concerned with the amount of claim, although I am informed that it is really quite small. The learned Judge proceeded to hold that if a ground though available was not pressed and was given up, it could not be raised as a challenge in a Section 34 Petition. The question of Page 1 of 3 5th February 2020 ::: Uploaded on - 06/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 07/02/2020 00:52:18 ::: 15-ARA32-18.DOC limitation was however kept open. The learned Judge addressed this question and found against the Appellant.
3. Those are the two grounds of Appeal, namely, that the question of limitation was wrongly decided and that there was in fact no statement by the Appellant giving up or not pressing his claims.
4. But I fnd that there is yet another issue that will need to be considered and this is the observation of the learned Add; Sessions Judge in paragraph 14 at page 46 of the main Petition that the failure of the Arbitrator to make a declaration in the prescribed form of Schedule VI as required under Section 12 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 was also an objection that was waived or must be deemed to been waived by the Appellant before the learned Arbitrator. This will need to be addressed because Section 12 and this contention of waiver will have to be read with Section 4 and particularly Section 4(a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996. Specifcally, the counsel will need to address the question of whether, as a matter of the public policy embedded in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act and refected in Section 12 read with Section 11(8) and Schedules V, VI and VII of that Act, the requirement of a disclosure can ever be waived or falls within the statutory expression "from which the parties may derogate".
5. At present, all contentions and submissions are expressly kept open.
Page 2 of 35th February 2020 ::: Uploaded on - 06/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 07/02/2020 00:52:18 ::: 15-ARA32-18.DOC
6. List the Appeal for fnal hearing at the admission stage on 9th March 2020 at 3:00 pm.
7. The Respondent is not to proceed in execution until further orders.
(G. S. PATEL, J) Page 3 of 3 5th February 2020 ::: Uploaded on - 06/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 07/02/2020 00:52:18 :::