Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
SANDEEP V.MARNE
Kinjal Dattatray Patil – Appellant
Versus
Nandadeep Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. Govandi, Mumbai – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to arbitration award based on limitation. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. petitioner's argument against the award's decision on limitation. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 3. court's consideration of the arbitrator's findings. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 4. agreed procedural stipulations regarding interim awards. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 5. analysis of limitation provisions relevant to arbitration. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 6. assessment of the award's compatibility with public policy. (Para 18) |
| 7. final dismissal of the petition. (Para 19) |
ORDER:
SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
1. By this Petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act), Petitioner challenges Award dated 1 November 2022 passed by the learned sole Arbitrator. By the Impugned Award, the learned Arbitrator has dismissed the claims of the Petitioner as barred by limitation.
2. Petitioner is a Developer. Respondent is a cooperative housing society (Respondent-Society) formed by employees of Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM). Respondent-Society is seized and possessed of plots of land bearing Nos.9, 10, 11 and 15 admeasuring 5634 square meters of thereabouts at Sector-II, Deonar Municipal la
The right to sue accrues on receipt of termination notice, and discussions held do not extend limitation under arbitration or contract claims.
The existence of ongoing disputes under a Joint Development Agreement validates the invocation of arbitration clauses despite assertions of limitation, confirming the agreement's subsistence.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the Limitation Act, 1963 to arbitration proceedings and the significance of acknowledging claims to extend the period of limitat....
The scope of interference in an arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is limited and narrow. The Courts shall not sit in an appeal while adjudicating a challen....
Section 34 limits interference with arbitral awards to root perversity; plausible denial of specific performance upheld despite illegal termination, as developer not ready to deliver essential redeve....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
