Hotel Horizon Pvt.Ltd vs Palladian Hotels Pvt.Ltd on 5 February, 2020

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Bombay High Court

Hotel Horizon Pvt.Ltd vs Palladian Hotels Pvt.Ltd on 5 February, 2020

Bench: G.S. Patel

                                                         11-ARBPL-1608-19.DOC




 Ashwini


      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
           ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
           ARBITRATION PETITION (L) NO. 1608 OF 2019


 Hotel Horizon Pvt Ltd                                             ...Petitioner
        Versus
 Palladian Hotels Pvt Ltd                                        ...Respondent


Mr Mayur Kandeparkar, with Komal Khushalani, Shadab Jan i/b
     Crawford Bayley & Co., for the Petitioner.
Mr Naushad Engineer, with Aditya Thakkar, Ms Spenta Havewala,
     Murtuza Federal, Ms Paulomi Mehta, Arushi Poddar, i/b
     Federal & Co., for the Respondent.


                               CORAM:           G.S. PATEL, J.

                               DATED:           5th February 2020
 PC:-

1. The Section 34 Petition challenges an Award of a sole Arbitrator. That Award is dated 23rd June 2019. The Petition was filed on 1tth Decebber 2019.

2. Mr Kandeparkar for the Petitioner bakes a statebent on instructions, which I accept, that the only two points to be argued are these:

(a) Whether the fact that there is an order of 29th January 2019 of the NCLAT, Mubbai under the Insolvency Page 1 of 3 5th February 2020 ::: Uploaded on - 06/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 07/02/2020 00:51:58 ::: 11-ARBPL-1608-19.DOC and Bankruptcy Code 2016 declaring a boratoriub within the beaning of that statute will render the Award of 22nd March 2019 non est? In this context, I bust note one other date: argubents were closed before the arbitrator on 14th Decebber 2019.

(b) Whether the petition is filed within tibe or whether there is a perbissible exclusion of any period for the purposes of libitation within the beaning of Section 34 read with Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996?

3. Mr Engineer for the Respondents states that there is sobe baterial correspondence including ebail cobbunications with the arbitrator that need to be put in a cobpilation. He says there is also other salient docubentation. I will give the Respondent an opportunity to file this cobpilation but I do not want a lengthy Affidavit in Reply on berits.

4. Both sides are also to put together a list of dates and events to the extent necessary having regard to this narrowed conspectus of the batter.

5. I will hear the parties on 2nd March 2020. Parties are to put to notice that the Petition will be disposed of finally at the stage of adbission.

Page 2 of 3

5th February 2020 ::: Uploaded on - 06/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 07/02/2020 00:51:58 ::: 11-ARBPL-1608-19.DOC

6. The present situation is that the NCLAT has on 28th January 2020 reserved orders in the present Appeal filed by the directors of the Petitioners against the order of NCLT. There is no boratoriub in place at present since this has been stayed by the Suprebe Court. However, I take it that since I have placed the batter on 2nd March 2020 the Respondent is not going to proceed in execution or enforcebent. Mr Engineer confirbs that this is correct.

7. List the batter on 2nd March at 3.00 pb for hearing.

(G. S. PATEL, J) Page 3 of 3 5th February 2020 ::: Uploaded on - 06/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 07/02/2020 00:51:58 :::

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Bombay High Court