Bombay High Court
Sap India Pvt.Ltd vs Cox And King Ltd on 4 April, 2019
Author: G. S. Kulkarni
Bench: G. S. Kulkarni
1/4 CARBPL 351 OF 2019.doc
vks.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION PETITION (L) NO.351 OF 2019
SAP India Private Lited ... Petitioner.
Versus
Cox and Kings Limited ... Respondents
Mr. Navroz Seervai, Senior Counsel a/w Mr. A.
Rebello, Mr. Farhad Sorabjee, Mr. Pratik Pawar,
Ms. Shanaya Cyrus Irani and Mr. Siddhesh S.
Pradhan i/by J. Sagar associates, for the
petitioner.
Mr. Rampal Singh Kohli a/w Vikram Chavan, i/by
C.K. Legal, for the Respondent.
CORAM : G. S. KULKARNI, J.
DATE : 4th APRIL, 2019
P.C. :
1. Not on board. Taken on board.
2. The arguments on this petition which is filed for a relief for appointing a substitute arbitrator on behalf of the respondent in place of the arbitrator previously appointed, were heard yesterday.
3. Today the petitioner has moved this court.
4. During the course of the argument yesterday Mr. Seervai, ::: Uploaded on - 04/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 05/04/2019 04:58:45 ::: 2/4 CARBPL 351 OF 2019.doc learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner pointed out that in the title of the petition and in paragraph Nos. 2 and 17 of the petition, the petitioner had referred the provisions of Sections "14 read with Section 11 and 15" of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 (for short, "ACA"). He submitted that reference to Sections 11 and 15 appearing at these three places in the petition, was removed at the instance of the Registry. What can be seen from the memo of the petition is that reference to sections 11 and 15 is struck off and initialed. It can also be seen that this petition is not affirmed before the Officer of the Court and it is affirmed before the Notary. The concerned Officers Mr. Kesarkar, II nd Assistant master and Mr. P.P. Raut, Section Officer, have also explained that the petition is filed on the provisions as appearing in the memo of the Petition.
5. Be that as it may, considering the submissions as made by Mr. Seervai, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and in the interest of justice, if the petitioner intends to refer to the provisions of Sections 11 and 15 of the ACA, the petitioner cannot be prevented to contain such reference to these provisions in the cause title and in ::: Uploaded on - 04/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 05/04/2019 04:58:45 ::: 3/4 CARBPL 351 OF 2019.doc two paragraphs in the memo of petition.
6. The Court is concerned with the reliefs as prayed for in the petition and the effective adjudication of the proceedings and not on rigid technicalities, considering the legislative scheme under which Section 11(6), Section 14 and 15 of the ACA fall
7. In any event, the party which approaches the Court, would be entitled to choose and select the proceedings which it intend to prosecute. It also needs to be noted that the learned counsel for the parties have also advanced their arguments on the provisions of Sections 14 and 15 of the ACA.
8. However, Mr. Kohli, learned counsel for respondent has vehemently opposed the request as made on behalf of the petitioner. Mr. Kohli's opposition cannot be accepted as Mr. Kohli had also advanced submissions on the provisions of Sections 14 and 15 of the ACA and in that regard has also referred the citations during the course of the argument. Nonetheless as Mr. Kohli, desires a further opportunity, can be given to the parties to make submissions on this limited issue.
::: Uploaded on - 04/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 05/04/2019 04:58:45 :::
4/4 CARBPL 351 OF 2019.doc
9. Necessary amendment to restore reference to Sections 11 and 15 in the said paragraphs, is therefore, required to permitted considering the interest of justice. The amendment to be carried out during the course of the day. Re-verification is dispensed with.
10. Mr. Kohili at this stage, would submit that inclusion of reference to Sections 11 and 15 would nonetheless have some consequences and to that effect, respondent intends to file a reply only on the legal position. Although it is pure a issue of law, respondents as they desire, are permitted to do so as requested and serve such affidavit on the petitioner by 6th April, 2019.
11. The parties would accordingly be heard on this limited issue falling under Sections 11 and 15 of the ACA on the adjourned date of hearing.
12. Stand over to 08.04.2019. First on the list.(Part heard).
13. Copy of this order is expedited.
( G. S. KULKARNI, J.) ::: Uploaded on - 04/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 05/04/2019 04:58:45 :::