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

2003 Supreme(Del) 89

S.MUKERJEE
VINDHYA TELELINKS LIMITED – Appellant
Versus
BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
ANJALI JHA, N.M.Sharma, NIRAJ K.KAUL, Rahima Nath

S. Mukerjee

( 1 ) THIS execution petition involves an interesting point of law.

( 2 ) M/s. Vindhya Telelinks Ltd. filed an execution petition in relation to the award dated 25th September, 2001, seeking execution thereof in the manner of a decree.

( 3 ) UNDER the Arbitration Act, 1996 it is provided in Section 36, that an Award may be enforced as a decree only in either of the two eventualities referred to below:

(A) when time for making an application to set aside the arbitral award under Section 34 has expired, or

(B) when such application having been made, same has been refused.

( 4 ) IN the present case admittedly no application for setting aside the Award has been made upto the relevant time, and as such no question arises of the same having been refused.

( 5 ) AS such it has to be considered whether the statutorily prescribed time for making of such an application (Objections), has expired or not.

( 6 ) REFERENCE may be made to Section 34 (3) of the Arbitration Act, 1996, which reads as under:

"section 34 (3 ). An application for setting aside may not be made after three months have elapsed from the date on which the party making that application had received the Arbitral Award o






























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