Sayla Realtors vs Saurashtra CHS Ltd

Judgment text excerpt

OJ-F-48-RPL-34480-2025.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION REVIEW PETITION (L) NO. 34480 OF 2025 Sayla Realtors …Petitioner Versus Saurashtra CHS Ltd …Respondent Mr. Bhavesh Parmar, a/w Reshma Nair, Rajesh Sahani, i/b Vijayprakash Yadav, for the Petitioner. Mr. Shrey Fatterpekar, a/w Hena Gothi, i/b Omkar Khanvilkar, for Respondent. CORAM : SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, J. DATE : DECEMBER 10, 2025 Oral Judgement: 1. By an order dated September 25, 2025, by consent of the parties, an Application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Arbitration Act”) was taken on board and an arbitrator came to be appointed in the course of dealing with a Petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act. 2. The Section 9 Petition was converted into an Application under Section 17 and an arbitral tribunal came to be appointed with a ASHWINI Learned advocate of this Court being appointed as an arbitrator, in JANARDAN VALLAKATI Digitally signed by ASHWINI JANARDAN VALLAKATI disposal of the Section 11 Application. Date: 2025.12.16 13:15:28 +0530 Page 1 of 9 December 10, 2025 Ashwini Vallakati OJ-F-48-RPL-34480-2025.doc 3. This Review Petition has been filed primarily on the ground that there had been no consent for appointment of any arbitrator from outside the panel of arbitrators maintained in accordance with Section 11(3-A) of the Arbitration Act. The Review Petitioner does not deny consenting to have an arbitrator appointed but now contends that the consent was meant to be for only such arbitrator as appointed in terms of Section 11(3-A) of the Arbitration Act. The further contention is such a condition to the consent had always been pressed and the order of which review is sought, omitted to record such contention and the