Pimpri-Chinchwad Municipal Corporation Thr. Its Additional Commissioner Mr. Santosh Patil v. M/S. Shah Electricals And Engineering Works Thr. Its Propeitor Shri. K. Kenia

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ARBITRATION APPEAL NO.11 OF 2023 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.2138 OF 2020 Pimpri-Chinchwad Municipal Corporation through Additional Commissioner Santosh Patil ...Appellant/Applicant Vs.

M/s. Shah Electricals and Engineering Works through its Proprietor K. Kenia

...Respondent

WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.2137 OF 2020 IN ARBITRATION APPEAL NO.7 OF 2023 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.2136 OF 2020 IN ARBITRATION APPEAL NO.6 OF 2023 Digitally signed by MAMTA AMAR KALE Date:

2023.03.10 18:15:33 +0530 MAMTA AMAR KALE WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.2139 OF 2020 IN ARBITRATION APPEAL NO.8 OF 2023 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.2140 OF 2020 IN ARBITRATION APPEAL NO.9 OF 2023 Pimpri-Chinchwad Municipal Corporation through Additional Commissioner Santosh Patil ...Appellant/Applicant Vs.

M/s. Shah Electricals and Engineering Works through its Proprietor K. Kenia

...Respondent

Mr. Rohit Sakhadeo for Appellant / Applicant. Mr. Zal Andhyarujina, Senior Advocate a/w. Mr. Mihir Mody, Ms. Revati Desai, Mr. Dhaval A. Patil i/b. M/s. K. Ashar & Co. for Respondent.

---- CORAM : MANISH PITALE, J.

DATE : 10 MARCH 2023 P.C.

.

By pronouncement of order today, this Court has dismissed the appeals filed by the appellant - Corporation. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant - Corporation submits that this Court may consider extending the interim order granted by this Court during the pendency of these appeals. 2.

This Court has considered the prayer made on behalf of the appellant - Corporation, which is opposed by learned counsel for the respondent.

3.

In the order dismissing the appeals, this Court has found that there is no substance in the contentions raised on behalf of the appellant - Corporation and that the awards passed in favour of the respondent do not deserve interference. The awards were passed by the Arbitral Tribunal in the years 2011 to 2013 and the respondent is still awaiting the fruits of such awards. 4.

In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to accept the prayer made on behalf of the appellant - Corporation. The

prayer is rejected. Needless to say, in view of the dismissal of the appeals filed by the appellant - Corporation, the interim order passed by this Court during the pendency of these appeals stands vacated.

MANISH PITALE, J.