Bombay High Court
Ms Bhanushali and CompanyversusMs Container Corporation of India Ltd
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The Court amended the order to replace the erroneous terminology, incorporate the fee schedule provision, and impose the statutory disclosure requirement on the arbitrator.
Summary
Petitioner Bhanushali & Co. filed commercial arbitration petitions seeking correction of an earlier order dated 17 September 2026. The petitioner’s counsel argued that the term “Interim Applications” should be replaced with “Commercial Arbitration Petitions” and that the order omitted the provision that arbitrator fees be governed by the Fourth Schedule of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, as well as the mandatory disclosure requirements under Sections 11(8) and 12(5). The Court, after hearing counsel for both parties, agreed to amend the order accordingly. Paragraph 7 was inserted to specify that arbitrator fees shall follow the Fourth Schedule and that the arbitrator must make the required disclosures within two weeks of receiving the order. The amended order was declared to replace the earlier one.
Issues considered
- Whether the term “Interim Applications” should be corrected to “Commercial Arbitration Petitions” in the order
- Whether the order should expressly provide that arbitrator fees are governed by the Fourth Schedule of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
- Whether the order should mandate the arbitrator’s disclosure under Sections 11(8) and 12(5) of the Act
Legislation cited
- Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — s. 11(8), 12(5)
Subjects
- Arbitration
- Arbitrator fees
- Disclosure
- Procedural amendment
- Commercial arbitration petition
Judgment
M6.821.26-CARBP+.DOC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION PETITION NO.821 OF 2026
AND
COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION PETITION NO.822 OF 2026
Digitally Ms. Bhanushali and Co. … Petitioner
signed by
BASAVRAJ Vs.
BASAVRAJ GURAPPA
GURAPPA PATIL Ms. Container Corporation of India Ltd. … Respondent
PATIL Date:
2026.09.23
14:25:18
+0530
__
Ms. Dishita Karavat i/b. EJ Law LLP for the Petitioner
Mr. Gautam Modanwal i/b. T. J. Pandian for the Respondent
__
CORAM : ARIF S. DOCTOR, J.
DATE : 22nd SEPTEMBER 2026
P.C.
1. Mentioned. Not on board. Upon mentioning, taken on Board for
speaking to the minutes of order dated 17th September 2026.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the words
“Interim Applications” mentioned in the first and last line of the order
be replaced with the words “Commercial Arbitration Petitions”.
3. The learned counsel also points out that the order omits to
record that the fees and charges would be as per the Fourth Schedule
and also the usual directions for disclosure to be made by the learned
Arbitrator.
Basavraj Page|1
M6.821.26-CARBP+.DOC
3. Accordingly, the following paragraph shall be read as paragraph
No.7 of order dated 17th September 2026:
7. The fees of the Arbitrator shall be governed by the Fourth
Schedule of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. So also,
the Arbitrator shall make the requisite disclosure under Section
11(8) read with Section 12(5) of the Act of 1996 within a period
of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
4. Order dated 17th September 2026 shall be read accordingly.
[ARIF S. DOCTOR, J.]
Basavraj Page|2
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.