Bombay High Court
Itd Cementation India Limited vs Chemie Tech Dmcc on 21 February, 2023
Author: Bharati Dangre
Bench: Bharati Dangre
(39)IAL-4090-2023.doc
rajshree
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
IN ITS COMMERCIAL DIVISION
INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO.4090 OF 2023
IN
COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION PETITION (L) NO.40632 OF 2022
ITD Cementation India Limited ] .. Applicant
vs.
Chemie Tech DMCC & Ors. ] .. Respondents
IN THE MATTER BETWEEN ITD Cementation India Limited ] .. Petitioner vs. Chemie Tech DMCC & Ors. ] .. Respondents Mr.Rohan Savant a/w Vaibhav Charalwar, Vrushali Pokharna and Krishnan Iyer i/b Pragya Legal for the Petitioner/Applicant. Mr.Siddhesh Shetty a/w Shivak Tiwari for Respondent Nos.1 and 3. Mr.Paranjape for Respondent No.4.
CORAM : BHARATI DANGRE, J
DATE : 21st February, 2023.
P.C.
1] The present Interim Application is taken out by the Applicant who
has instituted Arbitration Petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking certain interim reliefs in the facts and circumstances of the Petition.
1/3 ::: Uploaded on - 24/02/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 25/02/2023 03:45:25 :::(39)IAL-4090-2023.doc 2] By the present Application, the Applicant seek insertion of HPCL Rajasthan Refinery Limited as Respondent No.4, as described in the Schedule of amendment.
The aforesaid relief is sought in the wake of specific pleadings that it will be necessary for the Respondent No.4 to issue Gate Pass to take out the goods which are lying idle at the spot and when request was made to Respondent Nos.1 to 3, they did not pay any heed to the said request, since it is only Respondent No.4 who would have granted such permission.
3] The learned counsel representing the proposed Respondent No.4 make a categorical statement that he has no objection if the goods which are lying in their site are removed by giving prior intimation so that, necessary Gate Pass/Permit can be arranged. The said statement is accepted.
He also make a categorical statement that Respondent Nos. 1 and 3 were the contractors appointed by Respondent No.4, subject to their verification goods shall be permitted to be moved.
4] Upon such statement coming from the mouth of learned counsel for Respondent No.4, learned counsel for the Petitioner would state to the effect that no further relief is necessary as against Respondent No.4.
5] After hearing the learned counsel for the Applicant and the learned counsel appearing for proposed Respondent No.4, I deem it necessary to grant application by permitting the amendment to be carried out in terms of the schedule appended to the Application.
2/3 ::: Uploaded on - 24/02/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 25/02/2023 03:45:25 :::(39)IAL-4090-2023.doc 6] The learned counsel for Respondent Nos.1 and 3 also do not have any objection if the amendment is carried out.
7] In the wake of above, Interim Application is allowed.
Necessary amendment to be carried out within a period of one week from today.
Interim Application is disposed off.
[BHARATI DANGRE, J] 3/3 ::: Uploaded on - 24/02/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 25/02/2023 03:45:25 :::