VIJAY SHARMA vs VIVEK MAKHIJA

Judgment text excerpt

1-ARBAP-123-2024.doc copy.docx Digitally IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY signed by PURTI PURTI PRASAD PRASAD PARAB PARAB Date: ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION 2025.05.22 15:34:01 +0530 ARBITRATION APPLICATION NO. 123 OF 2024 Vijay Sharma …Applicant Versus Vivek Makhija and Anr. …Respondents Mr. Karl Tamboly a/w Mr. Dinesh Tiwari and Mr. Anish Sharma i/b Dinesh D. Tiwari and Associates for the Applicant. Dr. Abhinav Chandrachud for the Respondents. CORAM : SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, J. DATE : MAY 9, 2025 Oral Judgment : 1. This Application has been filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“the Act”). 2. This matter was heard at length on a few occasions to consider the the resistance to proceeding to arbitration under the arbitration agreement whose existence is not in dispute. 3. The primary objection presented by the Respondents primarily is based on the premise that the issues involved in this Application under Section 11 have already been adjudicated in the past by an order dated January 31, 2022 (“2022 Order”) passed by the Learned Single Judge of this Page 1 of 9 May 9, 2025 1-ARBAP-123-2024.doc copy.docx Court, with a direction that the instrument in question ought to be stamped. It was submitted that the 2022 Order is a final adjudication on merits and this is the second round of litigation under Section 11 on the same issues, by seeking reference of the very same disputes to arbitration, but without complying with the adjudication on merits as made in the 2022 Order. 4. The second objection is on the premise that the Applicant had all along been aware about the stamp duty payable on the instrument in question having been adjudicated, and that the Applicant had suppressed the same from the Court. Consequently, the submissio