Mumbai: The Bombay High Court rejected the petition of the reviews submitted by Niranjan Hiranandani against its order last May, which has set aside the arbitration award that supports developers in connection with real estate development in Powai.
Justice SC Gupte in the order of 28 June said, “The case of the Applicant Review here is not supported by the law or the authority of the court.
If there is, it will determine a strange president, if accepted, that it is open to seeking an assessment or command, if the court has indicated his mind with one The road in court while ordering judgment and judgment comes in another way of advice that arises before the court is under the impression that the case will be decided on a way and in fact, it was decided otherwise.
“Justice gupte retired as HD HC on June 29.
Arbiter has given award (order) in connection with a tripartite agreement between MMRDA, the state of Maharashtra on the one hand and six landowners and their other lawyers, Hiranandani, others.
The main submission of the Plaintiff – MMRDA and the state – before the arbitrator is that there are violations committed by six landowners and their lawyers consisting of tripartite agreements, agreements to rent and some exception orders.
Read: Mumbai City The latest UpdateTesh dismissal includes exceeding the size of a specified plot that can be built, merger or more than two flats, exceeding the proportion of bruto flats that are beaten.
The single arbitrator comes to the conclusion that the claim is prohibited with limitations and that there is no violation in the Hiranandani section.
The last Guptte Judge can put aside arbitrator’s findings.
Senior Adviser Pradeep Sancheti, for the developer, in a review petition said the reason for being reviewed was that what was held by HC was “different from what was expressed in court during the trial.
” Sancheti said he” stopped arguing “his case because the view was revealed by the court at the time of hearing the challenges raised by MMRDA to the arbitrator award.
He said the court had indicated that the arbitration award would be maintained in the aspect of violations.
Orders in May 2020 were passed by seven months after being reserved.
Prasad Dhakephalkar’s senior adviser and Nivit Srivastav for MMRDA against the review which denies the charges contained.
Justice Gupte said that “the submission itself is based on advisory assessments based on what is expressed or indicated in court or, on the contrary, what he understands as an expression or indication of the court.
No one shows that the court truly expresses itself or indicates how to learn the advice.
” “Although it is difficult to remember what happened in court on today’s date, it is impossible for this court to have to be at all times.
Indicates that it enforces the award,” said The HC.
Judge Gupte, while rejecting the review of the request added, “the suggestion that the court was advised It does not have the memory of the argument because the passage of time or must re-read the problem to decide the order or that such reason is given by the court during the court during the trial, not lacking naughty.
The trial and all advanced arguments are not only present in the mind of the court but are recorded very detailed in the written record of the hearing stored by the court.
“HC said,” What is discussed in court or, for that matter, which was revealed by the court, was almost irrelevant if the same thing was not part of the order passed.
In principle, it would never be able to be made the basis for searching for order reviews.
“