Authority: Bombay High Court, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction

Order Date: 29 August 2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Petitioners – Bapusaheb Shankar Rao Yadav (58) and Jayashree Bapusaheb Yadav (55), residents of Lonand, Satara; Respondents – Ramdas Dadasaheb Nigade, Sunanda Ramdas Nigade, and Chaitanya Agro Hi‑Tech Private Limited, Pune.
  • Nature of Proceeding: Writ petition (WP‑10036‑2026) under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging the legality of an order dated 24 March 2026 (Civil MA No. 1064 of 2019) that rejected an application for restoration of Civil MA No. 527 of 2013 filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
  • Background Facts:
  • On 1 September 2007, the Nigades entered into an agreement with the petitioners to acquire 50 % of Chaitanya Agro Hi‑Tech Pvt Ltd for Rs 50,00,000, of which Rs 12,50,000 was paid.
  • Dispute over the balance led the claimants to invoke arbitration (ARS 2/14).
  • Arbitration award dated 15 March 2013, pronounced by Justice P. B. Sawant (Retd), directed the claimants to pay Rs 53,20,000 (principal Rs 28,00,000 + interest Rs 25,20,000 at 18 % p.a.) within two months, failing which interest at 18 % would accrue on Rs 53,00,000 from the award date.
  • The award also required the claimants to deposit Rs 20,00,000 in a Fixed Deposit in the name of the company or furnish a bank guarantee of the same amount.
  • Procedural History:
  • Petitioners filed an application under Section 34 to set aside the award (MA No. 527 of 2013) but did not diligently prosecute the application.
  • The District Court issued several directions (e.g., 24 June 2017 to file documents). Petitioners failed to appear on 9 July 2019; the matter was posted for dismissal and on 1 August 2019 the application was dismissed for want of prosecution.
  • Petitioners filed an application on 13 September 2019 seeking restoration of the dismissed application; the District Judge rejected it, finding no sufficient cause for non‑appearance and noting incorrect statements by the petitioners.
  • The petitioners appealed to the High Court, arguing that the non‑appearance was due to advocate negligence and that they were doctors busy with professional duties.
  • Arguments Presented:
  • Petitioners (via counsel Mr. Devashish Godbole) contended that the District Judge’s view was hyper‑technical and that the petitioners should not suffer for the advocate’s inadvertence.
  • Respondents (via counsel Mr. Chaitanya Nikte) maintained that the petitioners offered no sufficient cause for their non‑appearance and that the District Judge’s decision was justified.
  • Judicial Reasoning:
  • The Court noted the award remains unexecuted after more than 13 years, emphasizing the Arbitration Act’s objective of speedy, inexpensive resolution.
  • The Court examined the petitioners’ stated reasons (need for additional documents, professional commitments as doctors, request for adjournment) and found them insufficient to justify non‑appearance.
  • The Court rejected the reliance on the Supreme Court’s decision in Rafiq And Anr v Munshilal that a litigant cannot shift blame entirely to an advocate; it cited subsequent Supreme Court judgments (Salil Dutta v T.M. & M.C. Private Ltd, Rajneesh Kumar v Ved Prakash, Nitin Mahadeo Jawale v Bhaskar Mahadeo Mutke) reinforcing that litigants must remain vigilant and cannot obtain relief solely on the ground of advocate negligence.
  • The Court observed that the petitioners themselves filed the application for a certified copy of the proceedings and the restoration application the day after the dismissal, indicating no genuine impediment.
  • Given the lack of a “sufficient cause” and the potential erosion of the Arbitration Act’s purpose, the Court concluded that restoring the application would be untenable.

Final Outcome

  • The writ petition is dismissed.
  • The order is discharged.
  • No costs are awarded.

Topics: Arbitration, Court Dismissal