The inimitable Justice GS Patel of the Bombay High Court has struck again with his brand of sharp wit..This time, he has imposed costs of Rs. 184 in an order passed on April 18, in an Arbitration Petition..Justice Patel was hearing the case in which the petitioner sought to withdraw an Arbitration Petition with an intention of filing a fresh one, in light of information that had earlier escaped his attention..Counsel for the petitioner Cyrus Ardeshir had argued that amending the existing petition would cause substantial inconvenience to the parties as well as the Court..However, Ankit Lohia, appearing for the respondents opposed the move, stating that no notice was served on his client, and that the grounds for withdrawing a suit under Order 23 of the CPC were not made out..Justice Patel rejected this argument, stating that the sufficiency of ground in clause (b) of Order 23 Rule 3 was a matter between the petitioner and the Court. Moreover, he pointed out the fact that provisions of the CPC would not apply to a petition filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act..Therefore, the judge allowed the petition to be dismissed as withdrawn and granted leave to file a fresh petition. As a parting shot, he imposed costs on the petitioners. But, there was a catch..“Now the Respondent presses for costs. Costs must, however, be reasonable. Since today is 18th April and having due regard to the merits of the opposition, it is reasonable to award costs in the sum of Rs. 184/-. These are payable by account payee cheque only by the Advocates for the Petitioners to the Advocates for the Respondents. The costs are to be paid within six months from today and are subject to deduction of tax at source, if applicable.”.Read judgment:.HT to Adv Vijay Singh (@vpls75)
The inimitable Justice GS Patel of the Bombay High Court has struck again with his brand of sharp wit..This time, he has imposed costs of Rs. 184 in an order passed on April 18, in an Arbitration Petition..Justice Patel was hearing the case in which the petitioner sought to withdraw an Arbitration Petition with an intention of filing a fresh one, in light of information that had earlier escaped his attention..Counsel for the petitioner Cyrus Ardeshir had argued that amending the existing petition would cause substantial inconvenience to the parties as well as the Court..However, Ankit Lohia, appearing for the respondents opposed the move, stating that no notice was served on his client, and that the grounds for withdrawing a suit under Order 23 of the CPC were not made out..Justice Patel rejected this argument, stating that the sufficiency of ground in clause (b) of Order 23 Rule 3 was a matter between the petitioner and the Court. Moreover, he pointed out the fact that provisions of the CPC would not apply to a petition filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act..Therefore, the judge allowed the petition to be dismissed as withdrawn and granted leave to file a fresh petition. As a parting shot, he imposed costs on the petitioners. But, there was a catch..“Now the Respondent presses for costs. Costs must, however, be reasonable. Since today is 18th April and having due regard to the merits of the opposition, it is reasonable to award costs in the sum of Rs. 184/-. These are payable by account payee cheque only by the Advocates for the Petitioners to the Advocates for the Respondents. The costs are to be paid within six months from today and are subject to deduction of tax at source, if applicable.”.Read judgment:.HT to Adv Vijay Singh (@vpls75)
