Maharashtra Tourism Development Corporation LtdversusNath Resorts Pvt Ltd

                                                                      36 WP-4000-26.DOC

                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                   ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

                                       WRIT PETITION NO. 4000 OF 2026

                      Maharashtra Tourism Development
                      Corporation Ltd.                                     ..Petitioner

                              Versus

                      M/s. Nath Resorts Pvt. Ltd. & anr.               …Respondents


                      Mr. Kaustubh Patil, a/w Ms. Mansi Shah, for the Petitioner.

                      Mr. Deelip Patil Bankar, a/w Ms. Pooja Deelip Patil, for
                           Respondent No.2.


                                                 CORAM :      N. J. JAMADAR, J.
                                                 DATE      : 16th SEPTEMBER 2026

SAINATH
SANJAY                ORDER :-
BODKHE
Digitally signed by
SAINATH SANJAY
BODKHE
Date: 2026.09.18
19:17:06 +0530
                      1.      Heard Mr. Kaustubh Patil, the learned Counsel for the

                      petitioner and Mr. Deelip Bankar, the learned Counsel for the

                      Respondent No.2.

                      2.      The challenge in this petition is to the orders passed by

                      the Arbitral Tribunal recalling an earlier order dated 05 th

                      January, 2026 to the extent it directed that, if the claimant

                      committed default in payment of the fees of the Arbitral Tribunal

                      on or before 11th February, 2026, the statement of claim should

                      stand dismissed without further reference to the Arbitral

                      Tribunal and that no extension of time to pay the fees of the

                      SAINATH, PA                       1/5
                                                 36 WP-4000-26.DOC

Arbitral Tribunal shall be granted to either party, and the

subsequent orders whereby the Arbitral Tribunal declined to

make any clarification as regards the payment of fees and the

seat of arbitration.

3.      The Arbitral Tribunal was of the view that, the application

seeking extension of time was filed before the expiry of the time

stipulated by the Arbitral Tribunal for payment of fees, and

since there was delay of about 6 days only in the deposit of the

Arbitral Tribunal fees, the order dated 05th January, 2026, being

a procedural order, the Tribunal was empowered to review and

recall the same.

4.      Mr. Patil, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted

that, by an order dated 27th April, 2026, on an application

preferred by the claimant seeking extension of time to deposit

the fees of the Arbitral Tribunal, the Arbitral Tribunal had

unilaterally extended the time to pay the fees, despite the

peremptory and self-operative order dated 05th January, 2026.

On account of the failure of the claimant to deposit the fees with

the Arbitral Tribunal, the statement of claim stood dismissed

and the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal was automatically

terminated. Having become functus officio, the Arbitral Tribunal




SAINATH, PA                        2/5
                                                 36 WP-4000-26.DOC

could not have extended the time to deposit the fees and

resumed arbitral proceedings.

5.      The submissions canvassed by Mr. Patil, do not deserve

countenance. Indeed, the order dated 05th January, 2026

directing the parties to deposit the Arbitral Tribunal’s fees

provided the consequences that would entail failure to deposit

the fees was processual. At best, the termination of the

proceedings was referable to the provisions contained in Section

32(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, (“Act, 1996”).

Such a peremptory order especially in the matter of payment of

fees of the Arbitral Tribunal, can only be said to be procedural.

It can hardly be urged that, the Arbitral Tribunal is denuded of

the power to recall and review the processual order. By no

stretch of imagination, the impugned order dated 27 th April,

2026, assumes the character of substantive review.

6.      It is imperative to note, the Arbitral Tribunal has recorded

that the claimant has deposited the fees with the Arbitral

Tribunal with a delay of 6 days only and, in the circumstances

of the case, the Arbitral Tribunal was persuaded to condone the

delay upon compliance with the direction to deposit the fees.

Moreover, by the orders passed by the Court, the mandate of the




SAINATH, PA                        3/5
                                                     36 WP-4000-26.DOC

Arbitral Tribunal has been extended. A challenge to such order

cannot be entertained in exercise of the writ jurisdiction.

7.      The impugned order dated 27th April, 2026, cannot be said

to be legally infirm, much less, afflicted with perversity that

stares in the face. Nor can the petitioner be said to have been

rendered      remediless   so   as   to    warrant   exercise   of   writ

jurisdiction during the currency of arbitral proceedings, which

can only be resorted to as a matter of rarity.

8.      In the case of Harshbir Singh Pannu & anr. Vs. Jaswinder

Singh1, on which reliance was placed by the Arbitral Tribunal,

the Supreme Court has enunciated that, if a favourable order is

passed by the Arbitral Tribunal for recommencing arbitration

proceedings, the only option available to a party aggrieved

therefrom, would be to participate in the proceedings and

thereafter, challenge the final award under Section 34 of the Act,

1996.

9.      The challenge to the subsequent order dated 15 th June,

2026 (Exh. C) as amended by the order of even date dated 15 th

June, 2026 (Exh. D) stands on an even weaker foundation. The

aspect of the dispute as to seat of arbitration sought to be raised

in an indirect manner, is subjudice before the High Court of



1       2025 SCC OnLine SC 2742
SAINATH, PA                          4/5
                                                 36 WP-4000-26.DOC

Bombay at Aurangabad Bench as the petitioner has purportedly

assailed an order passed by the Court at Aurangabad to extend

the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal. The Arbitral Tribunal was,

thus, justified in holding that, it did not owe any clarification to

the parties either with regard to the payment of fees or the seat

of arbitration, having already passed the orders in that regard.

10.     This Court gains an impression that, applications and

proceedings are being filed as a part of litigative strategy to delay

the disposal of the arbitral proceedings.

11.     Therefore, this Writ Petition, being devoid of substance,

stands dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000/- to be deposited by

the petitioner with the Maharashtra State Legal Services

Authority, Bombay within a period of four weeks from today.



                                         [N. J. JAMADAR, J.]




SAINATH, PA                        5/5