Rustamji And Ginwala

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4736 OF 2004 Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited. ... ... .... ... Petitioner. Versus Manny C. D'Mello & Ors. ... ... Respondents. Mr. M. D. Sidia with Ms. D. S. Retiwala i/by Rustamji & Ginwala for the Petitioner. Mr. Hitesh Jain for Respondent No.1. CORAM : S. A. BOBDE, J. DATED : 29TH APRIL, 2005. P.C.: Rule. Having regard to the dealership agreement dated 12th March, 1999 between the petitioner and the respondent No.1, it is clear that the respondent No.1 was inducted into the premises as dealer vide clause 2 for the purposes mentioned therein. The Petitioner itself is a Lessee of the property leased out to it by the Natu family. Clearly, this is a dispute arising out of the dealership agreement vide clause 2 thereof and is within the scope of Clause 66 which is the arbitration clause. Having regard to the admitted position that the arbitration clause has been invoked by the respondent No.1, prima facie case is made out for interim stay of the impugned order passed in a suit filed by the Respondents. Prima facie, there is no substance in the contention of the learned Counsel for the respondent No.1 that the dispute between the petitioner and the respondent No.1 is a dispute between the landlord and tenant and therefore, the suit is maintainable. Even the appellate court has observed that the respondent was inducted by the predecessor in interest of the petitioner i.e. M/s. Caltex India Limited. The Respondent No.1 has himself pleaded that he has been inducted by M/s. Caltex India Limited as a dealer, vide para 4 of the plaint. There is no cogent and reliable evidence at this stage to suggest that the respondents were inducted by the Lessor of the property in question i.e. Natu family, who is the landlord of the petitioner, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited. Hence, there shall be ad-interim order in terms of prayer clause (c), which reads thus: (c) that pending hearing and final disposal of this petition, the impugned judgment dated 11th February, 2003 be stayed. Learned Counsel for the petitioner requests for stay of this interim order. Prayer is rejected. Sd/- (S. A. BOBDE, J. )

Order - Status 7: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.215 OF 2011 IN REVIEW PETITION ST. NO. 16537 OF 2011 ARISIN FROM CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 383 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 216 OF 2011 IN REVIEW PETITION ST. NO. 16539 OF 2011 ARISING FROM CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 382 OF 2010 Office Notes, Office memorandum of Coram, appearances, Court's Court's or orders or directions & Judge's orders. Registrar's orders. Shri D. Khambata, Sr. Counsel along with Shri Minoo Siodia along with Shri Agrawal Nikhil and Shri Kaushik N. Singh i/by Rustomji and Ginwala for the Applicant. Shri Vijay Thorat, Sr. Counsel along with Shri Ranjit Shetty and Shri Luckyraj Indorkar i/by Hariani & Co. for the Respondents. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE :28TH JUNE, 2011 P.C.: . Not on board. Taken on board. Heard learned senior counsel appearing for the Applicant and the learned senior counsel appearing for the Respondent. Sufficient cause is made out for condonation of delay. Delay is condoned. The Applications are accordingly allowed. ( A.S.OKA, J )