The Hdfc Ergo General Ins. Co. … vs Smt. Varsha Suresh Sontakke And … on 2 March, 2020

2. Admit. Heard finally with the consent of learned

Counsel for the parties.

3. The facts giving rise to the present appeal, in short,

are as under :

On 2.10.2004 at about 6.00 p.m., deceased Suresh

Namdeo Sontakke was proceeding on his Motorcycle bearing

registration No.MH-34 AK-0885 towards village Majri where his

brother-in-law resides. When he reached near Urjagram on

Chandrapur-Nagpur road, the offending truck bearing

registration No.MH-34 AB-4061 was standing on the road in idle

condition without any indicator and sign. Deceased Suresh could

not see the truck and dashed to the said offending truck. The

deceased sustained injury to his head and other vital parts of

body. He was taken to the General hospital, Chandrapur where

he was declared dead. The said accident occurred due to rash

and negligent act of driver of the offending truck no.MH-34 AB-

4061. The said truck was owned by respondent no.2. The said

truck was driven by respondent no.3. It was insured by

::: Uploaded on – 02/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on – 04/03/2020 04:01:21 :::
4 fa262.20.odt

respondent no.1 (appellant herein). There was no one on behalf

of the deceased on the spot or nearby the spot at the time of

accident. Respondent no.3/driver of the offending truck lodged

false report. The police registered offence vide Crime No.238 of

2014 against deceased Suresh. The police prepared false

panchanama. Though there was no fault on the part of the

deceased, he was shown as accused.

Arun Ramkrushna Kotangale vs Zilla Parishad, Through Its Chief … on 2 March, 2020

(3) If a representation is submitted within a period of 15 days from

today, it is expected from respondent No.1 to decide the same in

accordance with law as expeditiously as possible and preferably

within a period of one month from the date of filing of the

representation.

(4) Till the said representation is decided, interim order granted

by this Court on 13.12.2017 shall remain in operation.

…..7/-

::: Uploaded on – 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on – 04/03/2020 03:47:04 :::
Judgment

wp7859.17 1

7

(5) It is made clear that all grounds raised in this petition are kept

open.

Rajasthan Transport & Hct(Jv),A … vs Western Coalfields Ltd. Thr. The … on 2 March, 2020

1. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of

learned counsels appearing for the parties.

2. The petitioner is challenging communication dated

23.11.2019, thereby rejecting the bid of the petitioner for

transportation of Coal on the ground that the petitioner was not

eligible as per condition no. 6(a). Petitioner is also challenging the

order of allotment dated 23.11.2014, issued in favour of respondent

no. 4.

3. The facts which are relevant for adjudication of the

petition are as under:-

The petitioner firm is Joint Venture/Consortium made on

19.09.2019 by and between M/s. Rajasthan Transport and M/s.

Harjeet Coal Transport. Both are partnership firms registered under

the Indian Partnership Act 1932. Respondent no. 1 is subsidiary

Company of Coal India Limited under the administrative control of

::: Uploaded on – 02/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on – 04/03/2020 03:21:55 :::
3 wp8537j.2019.odt

the Ministry of Coal, which has been incorporated under the

Companies Act. Respondent no. 1 is official of respondent no. 3, who

has issued a notice inviting Tender in which the petitioner’s bid was

rejected. Respondent no. 3 is the Ministry of Coal under whose

administration, respondent no. 1 functions. Respondent no. 4 is a

private party, who was L-2 bidder and has been awarded the contract

after the rejection of bid of the petitioner.

Prasanna Developers And 2 Ors vs High Seas Properties Pvt. Ltd on 2 March, 2020

“34. In case of any dispute or diference arising out of this
Agreement, either party may as soon as reasonably
practicable, give to the other party notice in writing of the
existence of such question, dispute or diference, specifying
its nature and the point of issue. If the parties cannot

Page 1 of 6
2nd March 2020

::: Uploaded on – 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on – 04/03/2020 02:04:29 :::
37-CARAPL92-2020.DOC

resolve the matter by reaching a mutually acceptable
solution within 7 business days, the said dispute of
diferences shall be fnally be referred to and settled by
arbitration under the provisions of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996 or any re-enactments or
modifcations thereof. In the event, the parties are unable to
resolve their dispute as stated herein above, the disputes are
to be settled by arbitration and for the said purposes, each
party shall nominate one arbitrator within 7 days from the
expiry of the 7 days period mentioned above. If either party
fails to nominate an arbitrator within such period, the
arbitrator who is chosen shall have the right to pick up a
second arbitrator with 7 business days. The Arbitrators
nominated by each party shall have a meeting and within 7
days from their nomination appoint an umpire and the three
(3) arbitrators shall constitute an arbitration tribunal (the
“Arbitration Tribunal”). The Arbitration Tribunal so
constituted shall enter upon the reference immediately and
shall within 60 days from its constitution, pass the fnal
award. The time of 60 days herein contemplated may be
extended by mutual consent of all the parties in writing.
The venue of arbitration shall be at Pune, and the
arbitration proceedings shall be carried out in English
language only. The arbitration decision shall be fnal and
irrevocable and the decision shall also determine the
expenses of the arbitration and the party which shall bear
them or the proportion of such expenses to be borne by
each party. The Arbitration shall be carried out as per the
provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 or
any re-enactments or modifcations thereof. In any event
during the continuance of the arbitration, the First Party
shall not be entitled to stop operation of banking account of
the Second Party or the development and construction
work and generally work of the scheme and this is essential
term of this agreement.”

Shabayesha Construction Company … vs Tirupati Shopping Centre … on 2 March, 2020

2. Between the parties, there is an Agreement dated 6th June
2008. Clause 16 has the provision for arbitration.

“16. In the event of there being any dispute or diference
between the parties hereto or any person claiming by or
under them as to any clause or provision of this Agreement
or as to the implementation thereof or otherwise in any way
relating to this Agreement, such dispute or diference shall

Page 1 of 5
2nd March 2020

::: Uploaded on – 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on – 04/03/2020 02:03:44 :::
28-CARAP38-2020.DOC

be referred preferably to a single arbitrator if agreed to by
the parties and failing such agreement, to the arbitration of
two Arbitrators, one to be appointed by each party to the
dispute who shall in turn appoint a third arbitrator and such
arbitration shall be held in accordance with the provisions
of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 or any
statutory modifcation or re-enactment thereof for the time
being in force. The Arbitrator/s shall have summary powers
and need not give any reasons for the award and the Award
made by the Arbitrator/s shall be fnal and binding on the
parties hereto. The Arbitration proceedings shall be held in
Mumbai.”

Garodia Automobiles Private … vs Fca India Automobiles Private … on 2 March, 2020

Page 1 of 11

2nd March 2020

::: Uploaded on – 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on – 04/03/2020 02:03:29 :::
14-ARBPL269-2020.DOC

2. Having given my most careful consideration to the case
presented by Mr Samudrala, I do not believe it is possible to grant
the reliefs sought in the manner in which they are placed. These are
the two prayers:

“a. That this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to pass an
order extending the time of the Arbitral Tribunal by a
further period of 12 months for making the Award in
respect of the claims of the Petitioner fled before the
Hon’ble Tribunal.

Nirman Panchvati Developers Pvt … vs Wellcity Real Estate Pvt Ltd And 6 … on 2 March, 2020

2. There was a Memorandum of Understanding dated 9th June
2016 between the Applicants (the Poddar Group) and the
Respondents (the Goyal Group). Clause XVII provides for
governing law and arbitration, thus:

XVII GOVERNING LAW AND ARBITRATION

A. Governing Law

Page 1 of 10
2nd March 2020

::: Uploaded on – 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on – 04/03/2020 02:03:39 :::
27-CARAP300-19.DOC

This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in
accordance with Indian Law.

B. Submission to the Jurisdiction

The Parties agree that they shall attempt to resolve through
good faith consultation, Deadlocks or Disputes (as
hereinafter defned) arising in connection with this
Agreement. Such consultation shall begin promptly after a
Party has delivered to the other Party a written request for
such consultation.

Shri. Sudhir Vasant Karnataki vs State Of Maharashtra Through … on 2 March, 2020

2. This petition has been filed under Articles 226 / 227 of the
Constitution of India for quashing order dated 07.06.2011 passed by
respondent No.1; quashing order dated 10.06.2009 passed by respondent
No.2; quashing communication dated 01.07.2009 of respondent No.3;
and seeking direction / order for confirming various orders passed by the
Deputy Director of Land Records (Survey), Pune i.e., respondent No.3,
including order dated 29.04.2008 as well as order dated 20.05.2008
passed by City Survey Officer No.2, Pune i.e., respondent No.5.

3. A brief recital of the facts is considered necessary.

4. Petitioner is the purchaser of the property in question from the
erstwhile owners Mr. Balwant Ramchandra Natu and others. As per
description of the property in question, it is situated at Shukrawar Peth
within the limits of Pune Municipal Corporation bearing City Survey
No.1332 admeasuring 1538 sq.mtrs. and City Survey No.1332A

1/13
::: Uploaded on – 02/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on – 04/03/2020 01:49:39 :::
WP10471_11.doc

admeasuring 367 sq.mtrs. (referred to hereinafter as the ‘property in
question’).