Bombay High Court
Kishor N Shah And 2 Ors vs Urban Infrastructure Trustees Ltd on 4 December, 2020
Author: G.S. Patel
Bench: G.S. Patel
38-IAL-6647-2020 IN CARBP-1435-2019.DOCX
Shephali
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 6647 OF 2020
IN
COMM ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 1435 OF 2019
Kishor N Shah & Ors ...Petitioners
Versus
Urban Infrastructure Trustees Ltd & Ors ...Respondent
Mr Aspi Chinoy,Senior Advocate, with Ms Ayushi Anandpara, Rohan Dakshini, Vishesh Malviya, i/b Rashmikant & Partners, for the Applicant/Petitioner Nos. 1 to 3.
Mr Zal Andhyarujina, Senior Advocate, with Mr Sharan Jagtiani, Senior Advocate, Aditya Mehta, i/b M/s Dastur Kalambi & Associates, for Respondent Nos. 1 & 2.
CORAM: G.S. PATEL, J
(Through Video Conference)
DATED: 4th December 2020
PC:-
1. Heard through video conferencing.
2. It is not possible to take up this matter on the urgency that Mr Chinoy seeks. This is an Interim Application under Section 36 of the Shephali Mormare Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 for stay of an unanimous Digitally signed Award dated 19th May 2019, corrected on 13th August 2019.
by Shephali Mormare Date: 2020.12.05 15:54:10 +0530 Page 1 of 34th December 2020 38-IAL-6647-2020 IN CARBP-1435-2019.DOCX
3. There have been previous proceedings between the parties. Mr Chinoy for the Applicant says that the Applicants / Section 34 Petitioners were under the impression that the Award Holder Respondents were not moving in execution. Therefore, there was no application made for stay earlier. He points out that there were parallel proceedings in which some statement was made about execution not being pressed. But that related to a different Award by the different set of the proceedings. He claims that no execution proceeding was served upon the Applicants until September/October 2020. This is the urgency that is sought to be made out.
4. This is not even remotely persuasive. There is no longer any question of an automatic stay once a Section 34 Petition is admitted or filed; and this Section 34 Petition has not even been admitted yet. Nothing prevented the Applicants/Petitioners from applying for a stay in all this time since January or February 2020. The mere fact that there was a delay, even assuming that to be true, in execution furnishes no answer at all.
5. I note from the records before me that the Applicants/ Petitioners did not seek a listing until their praecipe dated 24th November 2020. I have listed it as soon as possible thereafter. But since the matter is going to take a longer time, although Mr Chinoy says that it is only 15 minutes, I will have to reschedule it.
6. The real urgency seems to be that the Petitioners/Applicants are facing execution in another Court. One order of disclosure seems Page 2 of 3 4th December 2020 38-IAL-6647-2020 IN CARBP-1435-2019.DOCX to have been made and Mr Andhyarujina and Mr Jagtiani are pressing ad-interim reliefs in that Court on Monday, 7th December 2020.
7. Having regard to the listing on my docket, I can only list the matter on 7th December 2020 at 3:00 pm, and that has only become possible because the matter previously scheduled on that date and time is not to proceed on account of some personal difficulties of appearing counsel.
8. List the Interim Application on 7th December 2020 at 3:00 pm. This is not to be used as a reason for an adjournment in the execution proceedings.
9. This order will be digitally signed by the Private Secretary of this Court. All concerned will act on production of a digitally signed copy of this order.
(G. S. PATEL, J) Page 3 of 3 4th December 2020