Jani Clancey And Richards, v. India Infoline Ltd.,

(8)-NMA-875-19.doc.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.875 OF 2019 IN APPEAL (L) NO.432 OF 2018 IN ARBITRATION PETITION NO.585 OF 2014 Jani Clancey and Richards ..Applicant

IN THE MATTER BETWEEN

Jani Clancey and Richards ..Appellant

Versus

India Infoline Ltd.

..Respondent Ms. Prachi Pandya i/by Corporate Attorneys, Advocate for the Applicant/Appellant.

Mr. P. N. Modi, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Neville Lakshari, Ms. Jyoti Ghag & Mr. Ganesh Ambekar i/by Thakore Jariwala & Associates, Advocates for the Respondent.

CORAM : PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, C.J. & SMT. BHARATI DANGRE, J.

DATE : 5th DECEMBER, 2019 P.C.

1] Learned counsel for the Applicant/Appellant states that if it is clarified that all issues on remand could be decided afresh in Arbitration Petition No.585 of 2014 with specific clarification that what has been observed in paragraph 6 of the order dated on July 15, 2019 would not be treated as conclusive opinion of facts noted BGP.

(8)-NMA-875-19.doc.

therein, the application may be disposed of.

2] Suffice it to state the signature-tune order dated July 15, 2019 was to bring out the point that the impugned judgment does not reflect an application of mind with respect to the various contentions advanced before the learned Single Judge.

3] Thus, so clarifying and categorically observing that nothing contained the order dated July 15, 2019 shall be treated as a conclusive opinion on question of fact or law requiring Arbitration Petition No.585 of 2014 to be disposed of afresh on merits as per law. The application is disposed of.

Balaji G.

Panchal Balaji G. Panchal Date: 2019.12.06 10:31:15 +0530 SMT. BHARATI DANGRE, J CHIEF JUSTICE BGP.