SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2010 Supreme(Bom) 1376

ANOOP V.MOHTA
AMIT SURYAKANT LUNAVAT – Appellant
Versus
KOTAK SECURITIES, MUMBAI – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For petitioner: Rajesh Khandelwal
For respondent: V. K. Rambhadran

JUDGMENT :- Heard finally, by consent.

2. The petitioner has moved this Petition under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. 1996, (for short, the Act) thereby challenge is lade to the award dated 16th May, 2009 which according to the petitioner received on 1st June, 2009. Admittedly, the petitioner has moved an Application under section 33 of the Act, on 19th June, 2009, and various grounds were raised referring to limitation and the merit also and prayed to reconsider all the points. The respondent though served, not appeared before the Tribunal.

3. By order dated 1st July, 2009, the Arbitrator, observed that; there are no typographical or clerical errors or errors of similar nature in the award; the application, as filed, does not come within any of the criteria falling under section 3; it amounts to review of the award; rejected the application on all grounds.

4. The petitioner moved/ lodged this petition under section 34 of the Act, 17-10-2009.

5. The relevant section 33 is reproduced as under:

"33. Correction and interpretation of award; additional award. -- (1) Within thirty days from the receipt of the arbitral award, unless another period of time has been agreed u






























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top