WITH
COMMERCIAL ADMIRALTY SUITS NO. 8 OF 2019

Sagar Yadav And 18 Ors ….Petitioner
V/S
Msv Malaviya 36 (imo No. 8519083) And Anr ….Respondent

WITH
COMMERCIAL ADMIRALTY SUITS NO. 39 OF 2018

Capt. Jitendra Sama And 4 Ors. ….Petitioner
V/S
M.t. Maharshi Bhavatreya ….Respondent

Mr. Prasad Shenoy a/w Mr. Prashant Ashar, Mr. Naishadh
Bhatia and Ms. Bulbul Singh-Rajpurohit i/b Crawford Bayley
and Co. for Plaintiff in ADMS/6/2015, ADMS/1/2015,
ADMS/17/2015, COMAS/284/2015, COMAS/285/2015,
ADMS/1/2017 and COMAS/121/2017;
Mr. Ajai Fernandes a/w Ms. Sneha B. Pandey for Applicant in
CHS/66/2018 and for Defendant No. 3 in ADMS/18/2017;
Mr. Ashwini Sinha i/b Harsh G. Pratp for Plaintiff in
ADMS/11/2015;

WITH
COMMERCIAL ADMIRALTY SUITS NO. 8 OF 2019

Sagar Yadav And 18 Ors ….Petitioner
V/S
Msv Malaviya 36 (imo No. 8519083) And Anr ….Respondent

WITH
COMMERCIAL ADMIRALTY SUITS NO. 39 OF 2018

Capt. Jitendra Sama And 4 Ors. ….Petitioner
V/S
M.t. Maharshi Bhavatreya ….Respondent

Mr. Prasad Shenoy a/w Mr. Prashant Ashar, Mr. Naishadh
Bhatia and Ms. Bulbul Singh-Rajpurohit i/b Crawford Bayley
and Co. for Plaintiff in ADMS/6/2015, ADMS/1/2015,
ADMS/17/2015, COMAS/284/2015, COMAS/285/2015,
ADMS/1/2017 and COMAS/121/2017;
Mr. Ajai Fernandes a/w Ms. Sneha B. Pandey for Applicant in
CHS/66/2018 and for Defendant No. 3 in ADMS/18/2017;
Mr. Ashwini Sinha i/b Harsh G. Pratp for Plaintiff in
ADMS/11/2015;

WITH
COMMERCIAL ADMIRALTY SUITS NO. 8 OF 2019

Sagar Yadav And 18 Ors ….Petitioner
V/S
Msv Malaviya 36 (imo No. 8519083) And Anr ….Respondent

WITH
COMMERCIAL ADMIRALTY SUITS NO. 39 OF 2018

Capt. Jitendra Sama And 4 Ors. ….Petitioner
V/S
M.t. Maharshi Bhavatreya ….Respondent

Mr. Prasad Shenoy a/w Mr. Prashant Ashar, Mr. Naishadh
Bhatia and Ms. Bulbul Singh-Rajpurohit i/b Crawford Bayley
and Co. for Plaintiff in ADMS/6/2015, ADMS/1/2015,
ADMS/17/2015, COMAS/284/2015, COMAS/285/2015,
ADMS/1/2017 and COMAS/121/2017;
Mr. Ajai Fernandes a/w Ms. Sneha B. Pandey for Applicant in
CHS/66/2018 and for Defendant No. 3 in ADMS/18/2017;
Mr. Ashwini Sinha i/b Harsh G. Pratp for Plaintiff in
ADMS/11/2015;

1. Rule.

2. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard with the

consent of the parties.

3. This petition seeks a Writ of Habeas Corpus and a

direction to forthwith release of the petitioner (Detenu) from the

custody of he Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (for short ‘DRI’) in

RA No.71 of 2019 arising out of DRI F. No.DRI/MZU/E/INT-

65/2019, on the ground that the detention of petitioner in custody

is illegal and the same is violative of Article 14, 21 and 22 of the

Constitution of India.

4. Facts necessary for the decision of the present petition,

are as follows:-

N.S. Kamble page 2 of 26
criminal wp-4642-2019

About in the month of March 2019 the second

respondent started investigation into the Smuggling of Gold by a

syndicate. In pursuance of the said investigation, on 29.03.2019

one Shri.Happy Dhakad was arrested under Section 104 of the

Customs Act, 1962. Thereafter, though his bail application was

rejected, subsequently statutory default bail was granted to him. An

action under COFEPOSA Act of detention was not sustained by the

Advisory Board and hence he was released. Criminal Writ Petition

No.2700 of 2019 was preferred by the family members of

Shri.Happy Dhakad as well as by the petitioner, seeking certain

reliefs to protect their fundamental rights. An order came to be

passed by partly allowing the Writ Petition thereby permitting the

presence of advocate at visible, but not audible distance during

interrogation and video recording of statement was also allowed.

2. It is not in dispute that the review petitioner had nominated Shri

Ashwin Ankhad, advocate as its nominee arbitrator in view of the dispute

having been arisen between the parties by invoking arbitration agreement.

The respondent herein had appointed a former Chief Justice of Karnataka as

presiding arbitrator. It is not in dispute that the learned arbitrator nominated

by the petitioner herein did not file any statement of disclosure as

contemplated under Section 12(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,

1996 (for short ‘Arbitration Act’).

3. The respondent herein filed Commercial Arbitration Petition No. 376

of 2017 impugning the majority award dated 6 th January, 2017 on various

grounds. It was one of the contention of the respondent herein that learned

arbitrator nominated by the petitioner herein was disqualified to act as

2
::: Uploaded on – 21/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on – 22/01/2020 02:29:25 :::
rpcd-51.19.docx

arbitrator in view of Section 12(5) of the Arbitration Act read with Fifth and

Seventh Schedule. No disclosure as contemplated under Section 12(1) read

with 12(5) was made by the learned arbitrator nominated by the petitioner

herein. The respondent came to know about various interest of the learned

arbitrator nominated by the respondent herein after declaration of the

impugned award by the Arbitral Tribunal. Mr. Sakhare, learned senior

counsel for the respondent at the outset raised a preliminary objection about

maintainability of the Review Petition on the ground that Arbitration Act

being a self contained code and there being no provision prescribing a

remedy for seeking review under the Arbitration Act, in view of limited

judicial intervention under Section 5 of the Arbitration Act, review petition

filed by the petitioner herein seeking recall of the judgment dated 8 th

November, 2019 is not maintainable.

2. The petitioner was the original respondent whereas the the

respondent was the original claimant before the learned arbitrator. In this

judgment, the parties are described as per their original status in the

arbitration proceedings. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of

deciding these arbitration petitions are as under :-

3. The respondent was engaged in the business of designing,

manufacturing, marketing, distribution and sale of garments, leather

accessories and other related products. It was the case of the claimant

that the claimant was entitled to shop nos.1 and 2, Linking Road, Khar

(West), Mumbai- 400 056 and another shop at Senapati Bapat Marg,

Lower Parel, Mumbai -400 013. By an Agreement entitled ‘Agency

Agreement’ dated 20th May 2008, the respondent appointed the claimant

as authorised agent of its products at Khar premises to establish and

operate a Retail outlet and showroom in the said premises. The said

agreement was for the term of 60 months ending on 20 th May 2013 on

the terms and conditions recorded therein. (Hereinafter referred to as

‘Khar Premises’).

1. By this appeal filed under section 23 of the Railway
Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 the appellants (original applicants) have
impugned the judgment dated 18th April, 2016 delivered by the
Railway Claims Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, dismissing the Application
No. OA (IIU) MCC 2010/0749 filed by the appellants. By consent of
parties, this first appeal is heard finally at the admission stage. Some
of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this appeal are as
under :

1

::: Uploaded on – 21/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on – 22/01/2020 02:29:21 :::

fa2-19.doc

fa139.12.odt

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent

of the parties the Appeal is taken up for final hearing.

Mr.Mendon, learned counsel waives service on behalf of

Respondent Nos.1 and 2.

3. This appeal and cross objection arise from the

judgment and order of the learned Member, Motor Accidents

Claims Tribunal, Thane passed in M.A.C. Petition No.24 of 2008

on 12th September, 2011.

4. The brief facts of the case are that on 6th

September, 2007 the deceased was plying her scooter

bearing registration No.MH-03/AL-3779 and was proceeding

towards Mumbai from Thane. When the said scooter came

near the Electric BEST Pole No.15, one motor truck bearing

registration No.MH-04/CP-7455 came from behind in a very

fast speed rashly and negligently and gave forcible dash from

behind to the scooter and due to said impact, the deceased

was knocked down on the road and sustained serious fatal

injuries. Later on, she succumbed to her injuries.

WITH
COMMERCIAL ADMIRALTY SUITS NO. 8 OF 2019

Sagar Yadav And 18 Ors ….Petitioner
V/S
Msv Malaviya 36 (imo No. 8519083) And Anr ….Respondent

WITH
COMMERCIAL ADMIRALTY SUITS NO. 39 OF 2018

Capt. Jitendra Sama And 4 Ors. ….Petitioner
V/S
M.t. Maharshi Bhavatreya ….Respondent

Mr. Prasad Shenoy a/w Mr. Prashant Ashar, Mr. Naishadh
Bhatia and Ms. Bulbul Singh-Rajpurohit i/b Crawford Bayley
and Co. for Plaintiff in ADMS/6/2015, ADMS/1/2015,
ADMS/17/2015, COMAS/284/2015, COMAS/285/2015,
ADMS/1/2017 and COMAS/121/2017;
Mr. Ajai Fernandes a/w Ms. Sneha B. Pandey for Applicant in
CHS/66/2018 and for Defendant No. 3 in ADMS/18/2017;
Mr. Ashwini Sinha i/b Harsh G. Pratp for Plaintiff in
ADMS/11/2015;

WITH
COMMERCIAL ADMIRALTY SUITS NO. 8 OF 2019

Sagar Yadav And 18 Ors ….Petitioner
V/S
Msv Malaviya 36 (imo No. 8519083) And Anr ….Respondent

WITH
COMMERCIAL ADMIRALTY SUITS NO. 39 OF 2018

Capt. Jitendra Sama And 4 Ors. ….Petitioner
V/S
M.t. Maharshi Bhavatreya ….Respondent

Mr. Prasad Shenoy a/w Mr. Prashant Ashar, Mr. Naishadh
Bhatia and Ms. Bulbul Singh-Rajpurohit i/b Crawford Bayley
and Co. for Plaintiff in ADMS/6/2015, ADMS/1/2015,
ADMS/17/2015, COMAS/284/2015, COMAS/285/2015,
ADMS/1/2017 and COMAS/121/2017;
Mr. Ajai Fernandes a/w Ms. Sneha B. Pandey for Applicant in
CHS/66/2018 and for Defendant No. 3 in ADMS/18/2017;
Mr. Ashwini Sinha i/b Harsh G. Pratp for Plaintiff in
ADMS/11/2015;