Bombay High Court
Bombay Construction & Engineering Pvt. ... vs Mehta Finstock Pvt. Ltd on 25 September, 2009
Author: Anoop V. Mohta
Bench: Anoop V. Mohta
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 55 OF 2009
Bombay Construction & Engineering Pvt. Ltd.
a Company incorporated under the provisions of
the Companies Act, 1956 and having its
Registered office at 104, Kritika Annexe,
Main S.T. Road, Next to Union Park,
Chembur, Mumbai 400 071. ...Petitioner.
Vs.
1 Mehta Finstock Pvt. Ltd.
a company incorporated under
the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956
and having its office at 151-153, Mittal
Court, "C" wing, Nariman Point,
Mumbai 400 021.
2 HKB Stock Broking Pvt. Ltd.
a company incorporated under the
provisions of the Companies Act, 1956,
and having its office at Hiramani Ratnam
Co-op. Housing Society No.37,
Bangur Nagar, Goregaon (W),
Mumbai-400 090. ...Respondents.
Mr. Simil Purohit i/by M/s. Purohit & Co. for the Petitioner.
Mr. Dipen Merchant i/by Mr. J.J. Bhatt and Mahesh Shah & Co. for the
Respondents.
CORAM :- ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.
DATED :- 25th SEPTEMBER, 2009.
ORAL JUDGMENT-
1 Heard finally by consent. This is a petition under Section 34 of the ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:07:27 ::: 2 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, the Act).
2 The challenge is to the award dated 8th October, 2009 on various grounds.
3 Admittedly, the sur-rejoinder and the sur-sur-rejoinder were filed after the closing of the matter. The parties were represented by the advocates. Therefore, in my view, the decision based upon the sur-
rejoinder and sur-sur-rejoinder which were filed after closing of the matter, need to be reconsidered again. The submission that even otherwise, the averments made in those sur-rejoinder and/or sur-sur-rejoinder could not have changed the basic award, is not acceptable. Because, it amounts no full opportunity, as contemplated under the principle of nature justice.
There is nothing on record to show that the parties have accepted and or consented for such procedural mode and mechanism. Without expressing anything on merits of the matter, on this ground itself, I am quashing this award. However, it is made clear that the Hon'ble Tribunal may fix the matter and pass appropriate order after hearing both the parties within a period of 6 weeks, on the basis of material available on record.
4 The Petition is, accordingly allowed. No order as to costs.
(ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:07:27 :::