Justice GS Patel of the Bombay High Court has his ways of using his wit and humour to elucidate some specific points and that many-a-times are by way of orders.
Advocate Cyrus Ardeshir, who was appearing for petitioners in an arbitration petition filed in 2017, sought liberty to file a fresh petition and withdraw the earlier one.
The reason given for such action was that he found a large volume of material relevant to the case that had earlier escaped his attention.
According to him, the petition would require a substantial amendment, with possible inconvenience to all sides; hence, a leave to withdraw with liberty to file a fresh petition with all the material was sought.
Appearing for the respondents, Advocate Ankit Lohia vehemently opposed this application by the petitioners. He argued that no ground under Order 23 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been made out for granting such leave.
Ardeshir opposed this submission by Lohia and said Order 23 Rule 3 will not apply on a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act 1996.
Finally, the court dismissed the petition and granted liberty to file a fresh petition for the same relief and on the same cause of action, observing that no prejudice will be caused to the respondents if liberty is granted to file a fresh application. Not to mention, that multiple proceedings ultimately may result in a delay.
When the respondents still pressed for imposition of costs, Justice Patel said:
“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 the Order here.