Final Order 1

Order Details: Notice of Motion
Pdf Text: : 1 : Notice of Motion No.1578 of 2018
CNR No.MHCC010049052018
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT BOMBAY
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1578 OF 2018
IN
S.C.SUIT NO.710 OF 2016
Radial Infratech Private Limited .. Plaintiff.
Versus
Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing
Company Limited and Ors. .. Applicant/
Original Defendant no. 1.
Ld. Advocate R.A.Kamble for plaintiff.
Ld. Advocate Sagar Divekar for defendant.
CORAM : HIS HONOUR JUDGE
SHRI ANAND L. YAWALKAR
(COURT ROOM NO. 31)
DATED : 10.10.2018
: ORDER :
This Notice of Motion is taken out by defendants for referring
the present suit to arbitration as per the arbitration clause contained in
the work order.
2. Counsel for defendant submitted that this Court does not
have jurisdiction to try the suit and it has to be referred to arbitration
as per the arbitration clause in the Work Order dated 06.11.2012. They
further submitted that this Work Order was entered in between the
parties and is binding. Defendants relied upon the Work Order and
-- 1 of 3 --
: 2 : Notice of Motion No.1578 of 2018
Clause 29 therein and accordingly, it was be reiterated that the present
dispute be referred to arbitration.
3. Counsel for plaintiff appeared and orally argued that the
Work Order is disputed. It is incomplete and denied that any dispute
between the parties was to be referred for arbitration and prayed to
dismiss the motion.
4. Heard both the parties. Perused the material on record.
5. This notice of motion is heard only on the limited point,
whether there is subsisting arbitration clause in between the parties and
whether the dispute needs to be referred to arbitrator in view of the
said clause.
6. Defendant relied upon the Work Order, whereas it is disputed
by the plaintiff. As per contention in the plaint the Work Order is
incomplete. On the other hand, as per defendant the Work Order is
complete. I have perused the plaint, written statement and Work
Order. Upon perusal of the Work Order as relied by the plaintiff
alongwith plaint and also filed by the defendant alongwith notice of
motion denotes that on said Work Order there does not appears the
signature of plaintiff. Prima facie this is relevant.
7. As it appears the Work Order was prepared by the plaintiff.
The attention of this court was also attracted by the defendant to the
email exchanged in between the parties. But considering the disputed
nature and also non explanation of the signature of the plaintiff on the
Work Order, arises the question mark on validity on this Work Order at
-- 2 of 3 --
: 3 : Notice of Motion No.1578 of 2018
this prima facie stage. Thus, the Court is of the opinion that the dispute
cannot be referred to the arbitrator has prayed by the defendants. This
Court has jurisdiction to try the dispute and accordingly, I pass the
following order.
: ORDER :
Notice of Motion No.1578 of 2018 is rejected.
Anand.L.Yawalkar
Judge,
City Civil & Sessions Court,
Date: 10.10.2018 Gr. Mumbai
Dictated on : 11.10.2018
Transcribed on : 12.10.2018
Signed on : 12.10.2018
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
On 12.10.2018 at 4.50 p.m.
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME Mrs. P.R.Vengurlekar
NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge
(With Court Room No.)
H.H.J. Anand.L.Yawalkar
C.R.No.31
Date of Pronouncement of
JUDGMENT/ORDER
10.10.2018
JUDGMENT/ORDER signed by P.O. on 12.10.2018
JUDGMENT/ORDER uploaded on 12.10.2018
-- 3 of 3 --