Fine Jewellery (India) Limited v. Nascent Jewellery Private Limited

1 / 3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ARBITRATION APPLICATION NO. 232 OF 2015 Fine Jewellery (India) Limited ...

Applicant

Versus

Nascent Jewellery Private Limited ...

Respondent Ms. Tanmayi Rajadhyaksha i/b. S.J. Khera for the Applicant. None for the Respondent.

CORAM : S.J. KATHAWALLA, J.

DATED : 26 TH FEBRUARY, 2016 P.C. :

1.

By an order dated 5 th February, 2016 this Court inter alia passed the following order :

"7. It is therefore clear that the Respondent has failed to appoint an Arbitrator to resolve their disputes. Hence, the following order : i. The Court proposes to appoint Mr.Rashmin Khandekar, Advocate to decide the disputes of the Applicant and the Respondent arising out of Invoices bearing Nos. IN/10/CORPM/338 to IN/10/CORPM/434 from th February, 2011 to 11 th March, 2011 and the Memorandum of Understanding dated 14 th January, 2011. In view thereof, Mr. Rashmin Khandekar, Advocate shall submit disclosure under Section 11 (8) read with Section 12 (1) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

ii..The Advocates for the parties shall forward a copy of this order to Mr. Rashmin Khandekar, Advocate.

iii.Office to forthwith serve a copy of this order on the Respondent by hand delivery at the address shown in the cause title informing them that the matter is now placed before this Court on 22 nd February, 2016, when they may remain present if they so desire.

iii.All concerned to act on an ordinary copy of this order, duly

2 / 3 authenticated by the learned Associate of this Court.

iv.

Stand over to 22 nd February, 2016.

"

2.

Accordingly, Mr. Rashmin Khandekar, Advocate has submitted his disclosure under Section 11 (8) read with Section 12 (1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which is taken on record. 3.

Office has sought to forward a copy of the order dated 5 th February, 2016 passed by this Court at the registered address of the Respondent Company shown in the records of the ROC as of date. However, the same is returned with the remark 'Company is not working at given address' , as can been seen from the Service Report dated 18 th February, 2016 filed by the Section Officer, Board Department. Since the order was sought to be served at the registered address of the Company, which address on that day was shown as the Registered Office of the Company in the record of the Registrar of Companies, the said order is deemed to have been served on the Company, though the same has been returned with the remark 'Company is not working at given address'

. In view thereof, the following order is passed : i.

The disputes of the Applicant and the Respondent arising out of Invoices bearing Nos. IN/10/CORPM/338 to IN/10/CORPM/434 from 24th February, 2011 to 11 th March, 2011 and the Memorandum of Understanding dated 14th January, 2011 are referred to the sole Arbitration of Mr. Rashmin Khandekar, Advocate. ii.

The parties shall appear before the learned Arbitrator in his chambers, on th March, 2016 at 5.30 p.m. and obtain necessary directions. iii.

The cost of arbitration shall initially be borne by the parties equally.

3 / 3 iv.

All contentions of the parties are kept open. v.

The venue of Arbitration shall be at Mumbai.

4.

In view of this order, the above Arbitration Application is disposed of. ( S.J.KATHAWALLA, J. )