WARANA SUGAR LIMITED AND ANR.versusREFEX CBG KOLHAPUR PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS SPECTRUM RENEWABLE ENERGY PRIVATE LIMITED)

                            1                         501-WP-5083-2026

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                  CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
                 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                  WRIT PETITION NO.5083 OF 2026

Warana Sugar Limited & Anr.                 ..   Petitioners
            Versus
Refex CBG Kolhapur Private Limited
(Formely known as Spectrum Renewable
Energy Private Limited)                     ..   Respondent

                              …..
Mr.    Datta Pawar with Ms. Sakshi Jankar, Advocate for the
Petitioners.
Mr. Rajeev Singh with Mr. Saurabh Bachhawat i/b Mr. Rahul Patil,
Advocate for the Respondent.
                              …..


                    CORAM :     SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.
                      DATE :    5TH OCTOBER, 2026.

ORDER :


.       Heard both sides.


2.      The present Writ Petition is directed against the order dated

28.09.2024 passed by the learned District Judge-2, overruling the

objection to the application at Exhibit-9 submitted by the

Respondent under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,

1996.


3.      The counsel for the Petitioner has argued that the application
                         2                           501-WP-5083-2026

at Exhibit-9 is not maintainable and the Respondent had no locus

standi to invoke the powers. The privity of contract was between the

Petitioner and the erstwhile Spectrum Renewable Energy Private

Limited, and the Respondent is stated to be a stranger.


4.    Learned counsel appearing for the Respondent would submit

that the impugned order has been rightly passed, and my attention is

also adverted to the order passed by this Court on 01.10.2026 in

Interim Application (ST) No. 9053 of 2024 in Arbitration Appeal

(ST) No. 9052 of 2026.


5.    It is submitted that the Petitioner is estopped from challenging

the locus of the Respondent. The correspondence produced on

record and the documents submitted by the Respondent would

indicate that the Respondent has acquired the shares of the erstwhile

company. It is submitted that, instead of responding to the

appointment of the arbitrator, the Petitioner has indulged in

protracting the proceedings. There is grave urgency for the

Respondent and the District Court is seized of the matter.


6.    I have considered the rival submissions of the parties. I have

also gone through the impugned order passed by the District Judge
                         3                             501-WP-5083-2026

on 28.09.2024. The objection of the Petitioner regarding the

maintainability of the application at Exhibit-9 preferred by the

Respondent has been overruled by the said order. It transpires during

the course of arguments that the documents by which the

Respondent acquired the shares and stepped into the shoes of the

erstwhile company have not been placed before the District Court.


7.    It further transpires that the Respondent claims to have

exigency in the matter. The proceeding, which was disposed of by

this Court vide order dated 01.10.2024, is indicative of the fact that

applications for temporary mandatory injunction were pressed into

service, and this Court granted liberty to the Respondent to disclose

the exigency to the District Court for deciding those applications.


8.    Considering the rival submissions of the parties and having

gone through the relevant material placed on record, I am of the

considered view that the District Court is seized of the matter

preferred under Section 9 of the Act. The parties have not placed all

the   documents    before    the   Court,   either   for   deciding   the

maintainability of the application at Exhibit-9 or the locus of the

Respondent and/or the exigency in the matter for the Respondent.
                           4                              501-WP-5083-2026

9.    The piecemeal enquiry into the maintainability and/or the

merits of the proceedings needs to be avoided under the given facts

and circumstances of the case. It would be appropriate for the

District Court to simultaneously decide all the objections of both

sides, as well as all the merits of the matter.


10.   This Court has to adopt an equitable view because the

Respondent in the earlier round of litigation before this Court,

expressed exigency for it in the matter.


11.   Under such circumstances, I dispose of this Petition by

granting liberty to the parties to agitate their grievances against each

other, and direct that the enquiry be conducted threadbare within

the stipulated period, dealing with all aspects of the matter which

would fall within the purview of Section 9 of the Act.


12.   The Writ Petition is disposed of, and the impugned order is

substituted by the following directions:

       i.    Both parties shall be at liberty to raise their grievances
       or objections in writing against the applications filed by them,
       which shall be decided expeditiously on their own merits,
       without being influenced by any of the orders passed in this
       matter as well as in the earlier matter referred above.
                             5                              501-WP-5083-2026

         ii.    The parties shall file their applications as well as
         replies within a period of two weeks from today, and they
         shall serve copies thereof upon the other side well in advance.


         iii.   The District Judge shall decide the objections as well as
         the merits of the matter, which would fall within the realm of
         Section 9 of the Act, within a period of one month, after
         extending an opportunity of hearing to the parties.




                                    [ SHAILESH P. BRAHME J. ]


Suresh