LISTED ON: 08.01.2016 BEFORE COURT NO. ITEM NO.

SECTIONIX IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NOS. 10 11

(Application for directions filed by Mr.Farid F.Karachiwala, Advocate for the petitioner) IN

PETITIONS FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (CIVIL) NOS. 3166131662 OF 2012

HDFC BAK LTD. ...PETITIONER

VERSUS-

M/S.MANGLA CAPITAL SERVICES PVT.LTD. ...RESPONDENTS

OFFICE REPORT

The matters abovementioned were listed before the Hon'ble Court on 15th January,

2015, when the Court was pleased to pass the following order:

"Delay condoned.

Application for impleadment stands rejected.

The present special leave petitions are directed against the judgment and order passed by the High Court in Arbitration Application No.242 of 2003 whereby the Judge Designated by the learned Chief Justice of High Court of Judicature at Bombay has appointed an arbitrator to arbitrate the disputes between the petitioner and the 1st respondent.

Be it stated, the petitioner-Bank is aggrieved by the impugned order inasmuch it has already invoked the jurisdiction of the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Mumbai under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 for realisation of certain sum arraign Vinod Gupta and the 1st respondent herein as respondents in the said proceeding. Submission of Mr. Karachiwala, learned counsel for the petitioner is that once the matter is pending before the Debt Recover Tribunal and the said Tribunal has passed an order for preceding against Vinod Gupta and the 1st respondent herein, the High Court should not have appointed an Arbitrator under the provisions contained in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

After hearing the matter at some length of time, Mr. Karachiwala, after obtaining instructions from the concerned officer of the Bank, submitted that the Bank shall delete the name of the 1st respondent in the proceedings pending before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. Needless to emphasise, once name of the 1st respondent is deleted from the array

..2/-

of respondents before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, the case against Vinod Gupta before the Debt Recovery Tribunal can proceed in accordance with law.

Mr. Karachiwala, learned counsel, submitted that the order passed by the High Court need not be interfered with and the arbitration proceeding between the parties, namely, the petitioner and the 1st respondent be allowed to continue. On a query being made whether the parties are agreeable for appointment of a sole arbitrator, learned counsel for the parties agreed for the same. Regard being had to the concession given for the name also, Mr. Shailesh Shah, senior advocate, High Court of Bombay, is appointed as the sole Arbitrator. The learned Arbitrator is requested to dispose of the arbitration proceedings as expeditiously as possible. The special leave petitions are disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs."

It is submitted for the information of the Hon'ble Court that Mr. Farid F. Karachiwala, Advocate for the petitioner has filed an application for directions which are registered as I.A. Nos. 1011.

It is further submitted that Special Leave Petitions paper books have been weeded out after due preservation and counsel for the petitioner has filed fresh SLP paper books.

The Applications in the matters abovementioned are listed before the Hon'ble Court with this office report.

Dated this the 05th day of January, 2016.

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

Copy to:

Mr. Farid F. Karachiwala, Advocate. Mr. Arjun Garg, Advocate

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

L

-2-