✦ Bombay High Court · 13 Jun 2005

Mrs.Sita Bhaskar v. Harish Chandra Gutt & Co. Pvt. Ltd

Arbitration Petition No. 131 of 2005R M LODHA, LODHA, DEVADHAR, P DEVADHAR2 min read

Case at a glance

Provisions considered

Judgment

April 4, 2005. Aggrieved thereby, the present appeal has been filed.

5.

The contention learned counsel appellant Regulations framed Bombay Stock Exchange, arbitration application required accompanied audited balance-sheet. In absence thereof, the claim of the present respondent could not have been accepted.

6.

We unable accept submission learned counsel appellant. The arbitrator considered matter length a matter present appellant regularly dealing present respondent directly and/or through husband considering delivery shares transactions. The present respondent Rs.4,99,541.26 established. Merely because accompanied audited balance-sheet, cannot passed Arbitrator liable aside. Besides Mr.Arvind 3 Balkrishna Bhiday, Director respondent-company appeared before showed balance-sheet 2001-02 certified chartered Accountant evidencing present appellant sundry debtors owing an amount of Rs.4,99,541.26 to the present respondent.

7.

The is, thus, appreciation evidence material record learned Single Judge cannot dismissing petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

8.

Before close, we may record learned counsel appellant though sought respondent barred difficulty raised before the Arbitrator as well as the learned Single Judge, he did not carry the said contention further.

9.

Appeal does not deserve to be admitted.

10.

Dismissed in limine. LODHA,J.) (R.M. LODHA,J.) (R.M. LODHA,J.) (R.M. DEVADHAR,J.) (J.P. DEVADHAR,J.) (J.P. DEVADHAR,J.) (J.P.

Questions this judgment answers

Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — s. 34.

Which court decided this case, and when?

Bombay High Court, on 13 Jun 2005. The bench was R M LODHA, LODHA, DEVADHAR, P DEVADHAR.

Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case

No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.

This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Bombay High Court or eCourts case status (search case no. Arbitration Petition No. 131 of 2005). ← Search more judgments