LALITKUMAR V. SANGHAVI Vs. DHARAMDAS V. SANGHAVI
LAWS(SC)-2014-3-3
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on
March 04,2014
Lalitkumar V. Sanghavi
Appellant
VERSUS
Dharamdas V. Sanghavi
Respondents
Cited Judgements :-
U.P. RAJYA VIDYUT UTPADAN NIGAM LTD. VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2015-11-32] [REFERRED TO]BAGHEL INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD. VS. N.T.P.C. LTD. AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2014-11-298] [REFERRED TO]
MEDISPROUTS INDIA PVT LIMITED VS. SILVER MAPLE HEALTHCARE SERVICES (P) LTD [LAWS(DLH)-2021-1-158] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. PRAMOD KUMAR AGRAWAL, [LAWS(CHH)-2021-3-73] [REFERRED TO]
SOHAN DUBRAJ VS. MOHAR SAIDUBRAJ [LAWS(CHH)-2021-10-64] [REFERRED TO]
JITF WATER INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED VS. AQUAFIL POLYMERS COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [LAWS(GJH)-2021-3-386] [REFERRED TO]
KANPUR CITY TRANSPORT SERVICES LTD THRU REG MANAGER & ANR VS. GOLDRUSH SALES &SERVICES LTD THRU M D & AUTH SIGNATORY&ANR [LAWS(ALL)-2017-2-330] [REFERRED TO]
ANGELIQUE INTERNATIONAL LIMITED VS. SSJV PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR [LAWS(DLH)-2018-4-101] [REFERRED TO]
RAJEEV GUPTA VS. DELHI METRO RAIL CORPORATION LIMITED [LAWS(DLH)-2015-9-655] [REFERRED]
DANI WOOLTEX CORPORATION VS. SHEIL PROPERTIES PVT. LTD [LAWS(SC)-2024-5-64] [REFERRED TO]
IMC LIMITED VS. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF DEENDAYAL PORT TRUST [LAWS(GJH)-2018-9-232] [REFERRED TO]
GANGOTRI ENTERPRISES LIMITED VS. NTPC TAMIL NADU ENERGY COMPANY LIMITED [LAWS(DLH)-2017-1-222] [REFERRED TO]
M L LAKHANPAL VS. DARSHAN LAL [LAWS(DLH)-2018-1-459] [REFERRED TO]
RAHUL SOMANI S/O SHRI PAWAN KUMAR SOMANI, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS VS. RAMGOPAL SOMANI S/O LATE SHRI GANESH NARAYAN, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS [LAWS(CHH)-2017-1-54] [REFERRED TO]
KIRLOSKAR BROTHERS LTD VS. MICRO AND SMALL ENTERPRISES FACILITATION COUNCIL [LAWS(BOM)-2016-12-154] [REFERRED TO]
RAJIV DHAM VS. ANIL KUMAR GARG [LAWS(MPH)-2017-2-87] [REFERRED TO]
S.C. GARG VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(RAJ)-2020-8-118] [REFERRED TO]
BHARUCH AGRICULTURAL VS. STUP ENGINEERS [LAWS(GJH)-2018-4-170] [REFERRED TO]
SREI INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCE LIMITED VS. TUFF DRILLING PRIVATE LIMITED [LAWS(SC)-2017-9-160] [REFERRED TO]
SURENDER KUMAR SINGHAL VS. ARUN KUMAR BHALOTIA [LAWS(DLH)-2021-3-152] [REFERRED TO]
WANBURY LTD. VS. CANDID DRUG DISTRIBUTORS [LAWS(BOM)-2015-7-58] [REFERRED TO]
SHUSHILA KUMARI & ANR VS. BHAYANA BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED [LAWS(DLH)-2019-2-297] [REFERRED TO]
RANU ENTERPRISES & ANR VS. MALANPUR CAPTIVE POWER LTD [LAWS(DLH)-2018-9-346] [REFERRED TO]
JOGINDER SINGH DHAIYA VS. M.A. TARDE [LAWS(DLH)-2017-12-92] [REFERRED TO]
SPACE WOOD OFFICE SOLUTION PVT. LTD. VS. ANUPAM RAI CONSTRUCTION [LAWS(BOM)-2019-3-272] [REFERRED TO]
M/S. SHARDA ENGINEERING CONTRACTORS VS. SOUTH EAST CENTRAL RAILWAY (CONSTRUCTION BRANCH) [LAWS(CHH)-2017-5-1] [REFERRED TO]
NEETA LALITKUMAR SANGHAVI VS. BAKULABEN DHARMADAS SANGHAVI [LAWS(BOM)-2019-2-35] [REFERRED TO]
HYDERABAD METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS. RAMKY ELSAMEX HYDERABAD RING ROAD LIMITED [LAWS(TLNG)-2023-4-89] [REFERRED TO]
PRIME INTERGLOBE PRIVATE LIMITED VS. SUPER MILK PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED [LAWS(DLH)-2022-5-182] [REFERRED TO]
J.B. CONSTRUCTION COMPANY VS. SOUTH EASTERN CENTRAL RAILWAY [LAWS(CHH)-2020-2-167] [REFERRED TO]
JAYPEE INFRATECH LIMITED VS. EHBH SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [LAWS(ALL)-2024-2-62] [REFERRED TO]
PAHAL ENGINEERS VS. GUJARAT WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD [LAWS(GJH)-2022-6-44] [REFERRED TO]
M/S CNG TRADING COMPANY PVT. LTD. VS. H.P. STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD. [LAWS(HPH)-2017-1-23] [REFERRED TO]
MAGIRSHA INDUSTRIES VS. GUJARAT STATE FERTILIZER AND CHEMICALS LIMITED [LAWS(GJH)-2023-2-2116] [REFERRED TO]
EARTHCON CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD VS. MAHAMAYA INFRABUILD PVT LTD [LAWS(DLH)-2018-9-144] [REFERRED TO]
NILESH RAMANBHAI PATEL VS. BHANUBHAI RAMANBHAI PATEL [LAWS(GJH)-2018-9-358] [REFERRED TO]
ALKA GUPTA VS. SANJAY GUPTA [LAWS(RAJ)-2019-1-247] [REFERRED TO]
THE STATE OF TRIPURA VS. SUBHAS CHANDRA DATTA [LAWS(TRIP)-2016-1-27] [REFERRED TO]
P.K. CONSTRUCTION CO. AND ANOTHER VS. THE SHIMLA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND OTHERS [LAWS(HPH)-2017-4-29] [REFERRED TO]
SARR FREIGHTS CORPORATION VS. DREDGING CORPORATION OF INDIA [LAWS(TLNG)-2019-12-20] [REFERRED TO]
ECONOMIC TRANSPORT ORGANISATION VS. SPLENDOR BUILDWELL PVT. LTD. [LAWS(DLH)-2018-5-13] [REFERRED TO]
VIRKARAN AWASTY VS. HASSAD NETHERLAND B.V. AND ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2016-2-121] [REFERRED TO]
BUSINESS INDIA EXHIBITIONS PVT LTD VS. HONBLE ARVIND V SAVANT [LAWS(BOM)-2017-7-331] [REFERRED TO]
INTERNATIONAL ENGINEERS AND PROJECT CONSULTANTS LIMITED (IEPCL) VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER [LAWS(DLH)-2017-5-311] [REFERRED TO]
PCL SUNCON VS. NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2021-1-146] [REFERRED TO]
S K AND ASSOCIATES VS. INDIAN FARMERS FERTILIZERS COOPERATIVE LTD AND 2 ORS [LAWS(ALL)-2019-5-200] [REFERRED TO]
C G GURUCHARAN VS. R K ESTATES [LAWS(KAR)-2019-6-433] [REFERRED TO]
SREI INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCE LIMITED VS. TUFF DRILLING PRIVATE LIMITED [LAWS(SC)-2017-9-190] [REFERRED TO]
BHARAT HEAVY ELECTRICALS LIMITED VS. M/S.JYOTHI TURBOPOWER SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [LAWS(MAD)-2016-6-107] [REFERRED TO]
CNG TRADING COMPANY PVT LTD VS. H P STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD [LAWS(HPH)-2017-1-62] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
CHELAMESWAR, J. -
(1.)AGGRIEVED by an order dated 24th September, 2010 in Arbitration Application No. 44/2008 on the file of the High Court of Bombay, the
instant SLP is filed by the two children of the applicant (hereinafter
referred to as ''the original applicant '') in the above mentioned
application. The SLP is filed with a delay of 717 days. Therefore, two
IAs came to be filed, one seeking substitution of the legal
representatives of the deceased appellant and the other for the
condonation of delay in filing the SLP.
(2.)THE 1st respondent is the brother of the original appellant and the other respondents are the children of another deceased brother of the original applicant. Respondents are served and they have contested both the IAs.
Accepting the reasons given in the applications, we deem it appropriate to condone the delay in preferring the instant SLP and also substitute the original appellant (since deceased) by his legal representatives. Both the IAs are allowed. Delay condoned. Substitution allowed. Leave granted.
(3.)THE undisputed facts are that the parties herein are carrying on some business in the name and style of a partnership firm constituted under a partnership deed dated 20th October 1962. The partnership deed provided for the resolution of the disputes arising between the partners touching the affairs of the partnership by means of an arbitration. In view of certain disputes between the partners (details of which are not necessary for the present purpose) the original applicant filed arbitration application No.263/2002 under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act ', for short) before the Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court which was disposed of by an order dated 21st February, 2003 by a learned Judge of the Bombay High Court, who was the nominee of the Chief Justice under the Act. The relevant portion of the order reads as follows:
''Considering that applicant respondent No.1 have appointed two arbitrators, Justice H. Suresh, Retired Judge of this Court is appointed as presiding arbitrator. The arbitral tribunal so constituted to decide all disputes including claims and counter claims of the parties arising from the controversy. In case respondents do not cooperate with the matter of appointment of third arbitrator, applicant initially to bear the made part of final award in the position, application disposed of accordingly. ''
(2.)THE 1st respondent is the brother of the original appellant and the other respondents are the children of another deceased brother of the original applicant. Respondents are served and they have contested both the IAs.
Accepting the reasons given in the applications, we deem it appropriate to condone the delay in preferring the instant SLP and also substitute the original appellant (since deceased) by his legal representatives. Both the IAs are allowed. Delay condoned. Substitution allowed. Leave granted.
(3.)THE undisputed facts are that the parties herein are carrying on some business in the name and style of a partnership firm constituted under a partnership deed dated 20th October 1962. The partnership deed provided for the resolution of the disputes arising between the partners touching the affairs of the partnership by means of an arbitration. In view of certain disputes between the partners (details of which are not necessary for the present purpose) the original applicant filed arbitration application No.263/2002 under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act ', for short) before the Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court which was disposed of by an order dated 21st February, 2003 by a learned Judge of the Bombay High Court, who was the nominee of the Chief Justice under the Act. The relevant portion of the order reads as follows:
''Considering that applicant respondent No.1 have appointed two arbitrators, Justice H. Suresh, Retired Judge of this Court is appointed as presiding arbitrator. The arbitral tribunal so constituted to decide all disputes including claims and counter claims of the parties arising from the controversy. In case respondents do not cooperate with the matter of appointment of third arbitrator, applicant initially to bear the made part of final award in the position, application disposed of accordingly. ''
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.