TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2000 (2) TMI 867
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Petition No. 242 of 1997 filed by the appellant was rejected by the High Court, but the cross-Arbitration Petition No. 239 of 1997 which was filed by the respondent for extension of time to be granted to the arbitrator to make the award was granted. 4. A few facts leading to this appeal may be noted at the outset. 5. On 20th October, 1985, a Deed of Partnership was executed between the parties and one Rajan Tulsidas Sipahimalani, to carry on business of running a Restaurant. The business was carried on in the name of M/s. Cactus Restaurant and Bar, situated at Shanti center, Sector 17, Vashi, New Bombay. Subsequently, Rajan Tulsidas Sipahimalani retired from the partnership and business was continued by the present parties. In connec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ly, Justice Chandurkar withdrew from the arbitration. Thereafter, the appellant filed Arbitration Petition No. 94 of 1996 for appointment of Arbitrator and in the Petition he made an application for appointment of the Receiver etc. That petition came to be decided by Mrs. Justice Baam on 4th June, 1996 and by order she rejected the prayer of the appellant for appointment of Receiver, but as regards appointment of Arbitrator, Justice Lentin, retired Judge of the Bombay High Court came to be appointed as sole arbitrator and four months time was specified for making the award from the date of entering upon reference. 7. It appears that Justice Lentin also subsequently refused to act as Arbitrator. Thereafter, the appellant filed another Arb....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ich was brought in challenge by the appellant party in person in the Special Leave Petition. 8. By an order dated 7.4.1998, a notice was issued in the Special Leave Petition. Pursuant to the said notice, the respondent appeared through her counsel. As the appellant and the respondent are near relations, we tried to explore the possibility of settlement especially, in view of the fact that the arbitration proceedings have dragged on for years and the suit is also pending since 1990 in the Thane Court. 9. The appellant submitted before us that as the arbitration has failed and number of arbitrators have come and gone without rendering any decision his suit may be expedited and his application for appointment of Receiver be permitted to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on and learned Counsel for the respondent and we directed the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Thane, before whom the suit for accounts is pending between the parties, to appoint appropriate Receiver in the light of our order dated 20.7.1999 in place of Shri Seervai. The remuneration of the Receiver and other suitable directions to be issued by him were left to be decided upon by the Trial Court. After the said order, the Special Leave Petition was ordered to be placed on 21.01.2000 and that is how it was placed before us on 21.01.2000. In the meantime, I.A. No. 1 of 1999 is filed by the respondent, while unnumbered LA. of 2000, which may be treated as LA. No. 2, is filed by the appellant. It has been brought to our notice by both sid....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Court by order dated 20.11.1999 will now be treated to be the Receiver appointed by the Trial Court itself by its aforesaid order incorporating various directions issued by us earlier on 20.7.1999 and as modified by later order dated 29.10.1999. It will be open for the Trial Court to see that its directions are fully complied with by the respective parties concerned and the grievance of the parties in connection therewith will have to be examined and appropriate orders to be passed thereon by the Trial Court itself. Accordingly, suitable directions will be issued by the Trial Court to the Court Receiver Shri M.R. Vaidya. (iii) Copies of both I.A. Nos. 1 and 2 filed before us in this appeal will be sent by the Office to the Trial Co....