Ashok Shah
20 September 2015 at 23:11
HOn'ble judge of HIgh Court dismissed the petition on the ground that "Since the petitioner cannot proceed to appropriately deal with the objection canvassed under section 69(2) of the Partnership Act, 1932, A.P. No. 1552 of 2014 is dismissed for default. The petition may be revived upon the petitioner being adequately ready to deal with the challenge.
There will be no order as to costs."
My view : If petitioner can not proceed appropriately, then petition should have been dismissed and not dismissed for default.
Again, when petition was restored, ON 22ND JULY WITHOUT REFERRING TO THE ABOVE MATTER BY HON'BLE JUDGE. THE FOUR COPIES OF ORDERS ARE ATTACHED HEREWITH FOR YOUR PERUSAL.
WE NEED YOUR ESTEEMED SUGGESTION AS TO SHOULD WE FILE SLP.
FOUR ORDERS IN FOUR PDF FILES ATTACHED HEREWITH FOR YOUR PERUSAL. MY EMAIL ID IS AKVSHAH@GMAIL.COM
ORDER COPY GIST IS GIVEN HEREUNDER
ORDER DATED 10-08-2015
CAL CUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINA L SIDE
JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE
D ate : August 10, 2015.
The Court : The respondents are not represented despite previous service and despite the proforma respondents being represented at one point of time.
This is a request under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, founded on the arbitration clause contained in a partnership deed of January 5, 2009 in respect of a firm of chartered accountants.
The petitioners say that the principal dispute is as to whether the first respondent has resigned from the firm or not. One of the proforma respondents, according to the petitioners,appears to support the first respondent.
The petitioners invoked the arbitration agreement by a letter dated July 23, 2014. The petitioners nominated a chartered accountant of their choice as the arbitrator. The notice was duly received by the first respondent and replied to on August 10, 2014. The first
respondent asserted that since it was the contention of the petitioners that the first respondent had resigned from the firm, the arbitration clause may not apply. The first respondent also made a counter-suggestion as to the personnel of the arbitrator in
paragraph 2(b) of the reply. Since it is evident from the first respondent’s reply to the notice of invocation that there is no dispute as to the physical existence of the arbitration agreement and since the first respondent did not agree to the petitioners’ nominee as arbitrator, the appointment has to be made by the Chief Justice or her designate.
Mr. Utpal Bose, Sr. Advocate, is appointed arbitrator at a consolidated remuneration of Rs.6 lakh to be shared by the petitioners on the one hand and the first respondent and any supporting proforma respondents on the other at the first instance. The arbitrator will be free to decide on which of the parties should bear the arbitrator’s remuneration while issuing directions in the final award.
The petitioners reckon that the reference should take no more than three months from the completion of the pleadings. The petitioners have agreed to file their statement of claim within three weeks from date.
The order was pronounced by naming a chartered accountant as arbitrator in accordance with the arbitration agreement. Advocate for the respondents appeared at such stage and suggested that a lawyer be appointed as arbitrator. Since the petitioners have accepted such suggestion, the choice of the personnel of the arbitrator reveals a departure from the arbitration agreement. AP No. 1552 of 2014 is disposed of without any order as to costs.
Urgent certified website copies of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.
(SANJIB BANERJEE, J.)
sg.
ORDER DATED 21-07-15
OD-84 G.A. No. 2166 of 2015
With
A.P. No. 1552 of 2014
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE
Date: 21st July, 2015.
Appearance:
Mr. Rajeev Kr. Jain, Adv. appears
Mr. T. Tiwary, Adv. appears
Mr. Ashok Kumar Vanchand Shet, appears
The Court: Sufficient grounds have been made out as to why the petitioners were unable to proceed with the request under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 when the matter was taken up on June 30, 2015.
The order dated June 30, 2015 is recalled and AP No. 1552 of 2014 is restored to the file. AP No. 1552 of 2014 will appear as ‘Adjourned Motion’ in the monthly list of August, 2015. The restoration application being GA No. 2166 of 2015 is allowed as above but without any order as to costs.
(SANJIB BANERJEE, J.)
sg2
ORDER DATED 30-06-15
The Court : Since the petitioner cannot proceed to appropriately deal with the objection canvassed under Section 69(2) of the Partnership Act, 1932, A.P.No.1552 of 2014 is dismissed for default. The petition may be revived upon the petitioner being adequately ready to deal with the challenge.
There will be no order as to costs.
(SANJIB BANERJEE, J.)
A/s.
ORDER DATED 10-12-14
ORDER SHEET
AP No. 1552 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction
ORIGINAL SIDE
SUBHASH CHANDRA SARAR & ORS.
The Hon'ble JUSTICE BISWANATH SOMADDER
Date : 10th December, 2014.
The Court: Having heard the learned advocates for the parties and upon perusing the instant application filed under section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, it appears that this matter cannot be disposed of without calling for affidavits.
Accordingly, let affidavit-in-opposition be filed within a week from date; reply, if any, within a week thereafter.
List this matter under the heading, “Arbitration Motion Adjourned” a fortnight after Christmas vacation.
(BISWANATH SOMADDER, J.)
akb/
Anonymous
19 September 2015 at 01:12
How much majority of members needed where charge is going to be placed??
avdhesh
17 September 2015 at 22:42
Hello Everyone
I want to know about the law under which Charity Commissioner gives permission to collect "CHANDA" for festival celebrations on roads such as Ganesh festival or Dahihandi (in maharashtra).
Such "CHANDA" is shown as donation but mostly it is collected forcefully for their enthusiasm.
Thank You in Advance
RAJARSHI BAG
12 September 2015 at 20:32
I am a voter of Diamond Harbour Assembly Constituency (under Diamond Harbour Parliamentary Constituency) from West Bengal, India. By Profession I am an Assistant Teacher in a Govt. sponsored higher secondary school. For my job I am living in a rented house 80 K.M. away from my permanent residence for the last six years with my family. My permanent residence is empty and locked. At the time of last Parliamentary Election in 2014, I came to know that my name along with my family members' has been deleted from the voters' List without any correspondence!
I usually cast my vote through postal ballot (ED Vote) as, being a govt. employee, I am to perform election duty at the time of each and every election. Last time it was impossible due to the deletion.
My query is-
1. Is the deletion legal?
2. What is the legal procedure to delete a voter's name from the Voters' List?
3. If it is illegal, whom can I challenge and how?
Anonymous
08 September 2015 at 01:57
Hii, I am a Muslim person I stay in Kolkata I love my girlfriend since 7 yrs and she love me too because of true love we did marriage last April 2014 but yet we never spend our time with each other as she stays at her house and I was not prepared to take her at my House but few months ago her father got knew about this and he is deadly against this marriage he forced each other to give divorce very soon we both Dont want divorce we both are matured legally he is beating his daughter every time and treating me in Phn too sir could any one help us what to do now? One thing more girl wants to live with me please help us kindly what will be the procedure to take her at my House?
Murali
07 September 2015 at 20:36
Hi Experts,
I had a love marriage recently. My father in law and his family was not okay with our marriage. We have already registered our marriage legally. My wife's documents like marks card etc is in her parents house itself. 1) how can I get my wife's documents ?
My father in law has posted in Facebook stating that her daughter ( my wife) died with a garland photo of her. He is also abusing me and my family in watsapp and text message.
2) Can we file a defamation case against him ?
Awaiting your valuable response !
Thanks in advance.
M Satyanarayana
07 September 2015 at 18:09
Sir,
I filed partition suit and got 2/3rd share and my sister got 1/3rd share. My sister created forged documents to claim my 2/3rd share through unregistered relinquishment deed subsequently claiming agreement and compromise agreement coming under Contract act
I took objection at admission stage on grounds of forged unregistered document and not to take into evidence. Inspire of opposition from my side the forged documents filed under Order 8 Rule 1 CPC. Since final decree is pending Do I have a right to file application under Section 47 CPC section 11 CPC and Order 7 Rule 11 as the respondent already agitated on forged will and subsequently claiming relinquuishment after dismissal of SLP and review petition in the Supreme Court to reject the forged documents in the present proceedings
Please do suggest can I be permitted to file above application
Thank you
M.Satyanarayana
S
4WhatIsRight
07 September 2015 at 04:04
Our management has decided to close down a industrial unit citing losses due to lack of market of our product.
The management has also shown that there is a substantial amount payable to a PSU bank, which has charge on company's property.
We the workmen of the organisation want the unit to run, as there is potential market for product we make but management has not only intentionally not tapped the market but has fudged accounts and shown false losses.
We the workmen along with our trusted investor, who wants the company to run, are interested in paying off the dues to psu bank.
Can we file a writ?
Who are to be made party to the writ?
Workers, management, bank, investor?
Or what are the options available to us in above situation?
We along with the investor are willing to pay off all liabilities.
© 2024 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.
Slp against order u/s 11 of arbitration act
HOn'ble judge of HIgh Court dismissed the petition on the ground that "Since the petitioner cannot proceed to appropriately deal with the objection canvassed under section 69(2) of the Partnership Act, 1932, A.P. No. 1552 of 2014 is dismissed for default. The petition may be revived upon the petitioner being adequately ready to deal with the challenge.
There will be no order as to costs."
My view : If petitioner can not proceed appropriately, then petition should have been dismissed and not dismissed for default.
Again, when petition was restored, ON 22ND JULY WITHOUT REFERRING TO THE ABOVE MATTER BY HON'BLE JUDGE. THE FOUR COPIES OF ORDERS ARE ATTACHED HEREWITH FOR YOUR PERUSAL.
WE NEED YOUR ESTEEMED SUGGESTION AS TO SHOULD WE FILE SLP.
FOUR ORDERS IN FOUR PDF FILES ATTACHED HEREWITH FOR YOUR PERUSAL. MY EMAIL ID IS AKVSHAH@GMAIL.COM
ORDER COPY GIST IS GIVEN HEREUNDER
ORDER DATED 10-08-2015
CAL CUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINA L SIDE
JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE
D ate : August 10, 2015.
The Court : The respondents are not represented despite previous service and despite the proforma respondents being represented at one point of time.
This is a request under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, founded on the arbitration clause contained in a partnership deed of January 5, 2009 in respect of a firm of chartered accountants.
The petitioners say that the principal dispute is as to whether the first respondent has resigned from the firm or not. One of the proforma respondents, according to the petitioners,appears to support the first respondent.
The petitioners invoked the arbitration agreement by a letter dated July 23, 2014. The petitioners nominated a chartered accountant of their choice as the arbitrator. The notice was duly received by the first respondent and replied to on August 10, 2014. The first
respondent asserted that since it was the contention of the petitioners that the first respondent had resigned from the firm, the arbitration clause may not apply. The first respondent also made a counter-suggestion as to the personnel of the arbitrator in
paragraph 2(b) of the reply. Since it is evident from the first respondent’s reply to the notice of invocation that there is no dispute as to the physical existence of the arbitration agreement and since the first respondent did not agree to the petitioners’ nominee as arbitrator, the appointment has to be made by the Chief Justice or her designate.
Mr. Utpal Bose, Sr. Advocate, is appointed arbitrator at a consolidated remuneration of Rs.6 lakh to be shared by the petitioners on the one hand and the first respondent and any supporting proforma respondents on the other at the first instance. The arbitrator will be free to decide on which of the parties should bear the arbitrator’s remuneration while issuing directions in the final award.
The petitioners reckon that the reference should take no more than three months from the completion of the pleadings. The petitioners have agreed to file their statement of claim within three weeks from date.
The order was pronounced by naming a chartered accountant as arbitrator in accordance with the arbitration agreement. Advocate for the respondents appeared at such stage and suggested that a lawyer be appointed as arbitrator. Since the petitioners have accepted such suggestion, the choice of the personnel of the arbitrator reveals a departure from the arbitration agreement. AP No. 1552 of 2014 is disposed of without any order as to costs.
Urgent certified website copies of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.
(SANJIB BANERJEE, J.)
sg.
ORDER DATED 21-07-15
OD-84 G.A. No. 2166 of 2015
With
A.P. No. 1552 of 2014
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE
Date: 21st July, 2015.
Appearance:
Mr. Rajeev Kr. Jain, Adv. appears
Mr. T. Tiwary, Adv. appears
Mr. Ashok Kumar Vanchand Shet, appears
The Court: Sufficient grounds have been made out as to why the petitioners were unable to proceed with the request under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 when the matter was taken up on June 30, 2015.
The order dated June 30, 2015 is recalled and AP No. 1552 of 2014 is restored to the file. AP No. 1552 of 2014 will appear as ‘Adjourned Motion’ in the monthly list of August, 2015. The restoration application being GA No. 2166 of 2015 is allowed as above but without any order as to costs.
(SANJIB BANERJEE, J.)
sg2
ORDER DATED 30-06-15
The Court : Since the petitioner cannot proceed to appropriately deal with the objection canvassed under Section 69(2) of the Partnership Act, 1932, A.P.No.1552 of 2014 is dismissed for default. The petition may be revived upon the petitioner being adequately ready to deal with the challenge.
There will be no order as to costs.
(SANJIB BANERJEE, J.)
A/s.
ORDER DATED 10-12-14
ORDER SHEET
AP No. 1552 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction
ORIGINAL SIDE
SUBHASH CHANDRA SARAR & ORS.
The Hon'ble JUSTICE BISWANATH SOMADDER
Date : 10th December, 2014.
The Court: Having heard the learned advocates for the parties and upon perusing the instant application filed under section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, it appears that this matter cannot be disposed of without calling for affidavits.
Accordingly, let affidavit-in-opposition be filed within a week from date; reply, if any, within a week thereafter.
List this matter under the heading, “Arbitration Motion Adjourned” a fortnight after Christmas vacation.
(BISWANATH SOMADDER, J.)
akb/