Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 7, Cited by 0]

Bombay High Court

Sap India Pvt.Ltd vs Cox And King Ltd on 8 April, 2019

Author: G.S.Kulkarni

Bench: G.S.Kulkarni

                                             1                           3-carbpl 351-19.doc



psv
               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                   ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
            COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION PETITION (L) NO. 351 OF 2019

      Sap India Pvt.Ltd.                                      ...Petitioner
            Versus
      Cox And King Ltd.                                       ...Respondent
                                             ----

      Mr.Navroz Seervai, Senior Advocate with Mr.Akash Rebello, Counsel, with
      Mr.Farhad Sorabjee, Mr.Pratik Pawar, Ms.Shanaya Irani and Mr.Siddhesh
      Pradhan i/b. M/s.J. Sagar Associates for Petitioner.
      Mr.R.S. Kohli with Mr.Vikram Chavan, Mr.Jatin Sahai, Ms.Preeti
      Limbachiya, Ms.Ayesha Keshorwalia, Mr.Prasad Avhad and Ms.Dhvani
      Jain i/b. M/s.C.K. Legal for Respondent.
                                          ---

                                          CORAM:     G.S.KULKARNI, J.
                                          DATE:      8rd APRIL, 2019
                                             ---
      P.C. :-

1. In furtherance of the order dated 4 April 2019, I have heard Mr.Seervai, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner. Mr.Seervai has made submissions on the issues of law as involved in the present proceeding. Mr.Seervai has supported his submissions relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India And Others Vs. Uttar Pradesh State Bridge Corporation Limited1 and the decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court in Ignatius Tony Pereira V. Mr.Pifran Sanjivan Fernandes2.

1 (2015) 2 Supreme Court Cases 52 2 2016 SCC OnLine Bom 5470 ::: Uploaded on - 08/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 09/04/2019 04:20:53 ::: 2 3-carbpl 351-19.doc

2. Mr.Kohli, learned Counsel for the respondent, has made extensive submissions on facts and on law. Mr.Kohli has supported submissions relying on the decisions of in the case of SP Singla Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. 3, North Eastern Railway & Ors. Vs. Tripple Engineering Works4 , National Highways Authority of India & Another Vs. Bumihiway DDB Ltd. (JV) & Ors. 5, Shailesh Dhairyawan Vs. Mohan Balkrishna Lulla 6, the decision of learned Single Judge in Shane Duff Vs. Essel Sports Pvt. Ltd. 7, and the decision of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana at Hyderabad in Gamesa Wind Turbines Pvt. Ltd., Chennai Vs. Mytrah Energy (India) Ltd., Hyderabad 8.

3. After extensively hearing the submissions as made by the learned Counsel for the parties, this petition is closed for orders.

(G.S.Kulkarni, J.) 3 Decision of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos.11824-11825 of 2018 4 Decision of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.6275 of 2014 5 (2006) 10 Supreme Court Cases 763 6 (2016) 3 Supreme Court Cases 619 7 2013(3) Mh.L.J. 54 8 2017 SCC OnLine Hyd 466 ::: Uploaded on - 08/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 09/04/2019 04:20:53 :::