Southern Cylinders Pvt Ltd vs Sp Donadkar on 19 October, 2020

[Cites 0, Cited by 1]

Bombay High Court

Southern Cylinders Pvt Ltd vs Sp Donadkar on 19 October, 2020

Bench: G.S. Patel

                                                                      P1-ARBPL4794-2020+.DOC




                   Shephali



                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                              ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
                              ARBITRATION PETITION (L) NO. 4794 OF 2020


                    Southern Cylinders Pvt Ltd                                  ...Petitioner
                         Versus
                    SP Donadkar, sole Arbitrator & HPCL & Ors                 ...Respondents

ARBITRATION PETITION (L) NO. 4798 OF 2020 Sarthak Industries Ltd ...Petitioner Versus SP Donadkar, sole Arbitrator & HPCL & Ors ...Respondents Mr Pradeep Aggrawal, i/b Mansukhlal Hiralal & Co., for the Petitioner in both the matters.

Mr S Page, for the Respondents in both the matters.

                                             CORAM:        G.S. PATEL, J
                                                           (Through Video Conference)
                                             DATED:        19th October 2020
                    PC:-

1. Heard through video conferencing.

2. The Petitions are under Section 14 of the Arbitration and Shephali Mormare Conciliation Act 1996. In an identical matter involving a group Digitally signed concern of the Petitioner I passed an order on 9th October 2020 by Shephali Mormare Date: 2020.10.20 12:46:11 +0530 noting that the arbitral mandate had ended. It ended not just Page 1 of 3 19th October 2020 P1-ARBPL4794-2020+.DOC recently but over a decade and half ago when the frst arbitrator failed to complete the arbitration within the contractually stipulated time and after which there was no written consent for an extension of time as required by the contract itself. I also held that in that situation there was no question of the 2nd Respondent appointing the present Respondent, SP Donadkar as an Arbitrator. Apart from this, there was the legal consideration that unilateral appointments of this kind are impermissible in law.

3. It seems that there are other arbitrations also pending before Mr Donadkar and, despite the Petitioners' protests, this gentleman has suddenly shown a great deal of enthusiasm to proceed with the arbitration. This despite the fact, as I noted, that even under his own arbitral regime there have been inordinate gaps of as much as six years when nothing at all happened.

4. The Arbitration Petitions have recently been served. Mr Page will need some time.

5. List the matters on 2nd November 2020.

6. In the meantime, all arbitration proceedings before Mr Donadkar are stayed. He is not to conduct any hearings or do anything whatsoever in those arbitral proceedings. If, despite this order he continues to purport to act, I will have no choice but to take appropriate steps, including, if necessary, passing an order in contempt against him.

Page 2 of 3

19th October 2020 P1-ARBPL4794-2020+.DOC

7. I trust Mr Page for the 2nd Respondent will convey this order telephonically to Mr Donadkar immediately. The order copy will be available online tomorrow.

8. At present, all contentions are left open until the next date.

9. This order will be digitally signed by the Private Secretary of this Court. All concerned will act on production by fax or email of a digitally signed copy of this order.

(G. S. PATEL, J) Page 3 of 3 19th October 2020

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Bombay High Court