IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
DEBANGSU BASAK, MD.SHABBAR RASHIDI
Kamlesh Kumar Agarwala – Appellant
Versus
Estate of Manjan Devi Patni, Represented by Nirmal Kumar Jain – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual history and procedural background of the arbitration challenge and territorial jurisdiction. (Para 1 , 2 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 2. summary of contentions by parties regarding limitation period and bona fide prosecution of proceedings. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. analysis of section 14 of the limitation act requirements and the necessity of due diligence. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34) |
| 4. lack of bona fide effort in pursuing legal remedies bars the benefit of section 14. (Para 35 , 36 , 37 , 38) |
JUDGMENT :
MD. SHABBAR RASHIDI, J.
1. The appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is in assailment of impugned judgment and order dated March 2, 2020 passed in A.P. No. 74 of 2019, G.A. No. 399 of 2019.
2. By the impugned judgment and order, the learned Single Judge rejected the challenge to the arbitral award dated February 28, 2018 and dismissed A.P. No. 74 of 2019 on the ground that challenge under Section 34 of the Act of 1996 was filed after the expiry of the time period prescribed under Section 34 (3) of the Act of 1996. The learned Trial Judge held tha
EXL Careers and Another Vs. Frankfinn Aviation Services Private Limited
Consolidated Engineering Enterprises Vs. Principal Secretary, Irrigation Department and Others
M.P. Steel Corporation Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
The application under Section 34(2) of the Act was not entitled to the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, as the appellant did not prosecute any civil proceedings in good faith and with due....
Setting aside arbitral award – Merely mentioning a wrong heading of provision on the application would not defeat cause of justice – Contents of application are required to be seen and not the provis....
Point of Law : Even if the period of delay is considered to be of 21 days. Since Section 34(3) of the Act, 1996 bars condonation of delay beyond the period of 30 days after the period of 3 months is ....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.