Back
SANJEEV NARULA
Rwl Healthworld Limited – Appellant
Versus
Escorts Heart Institute And Research Centre – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Sanjeev Narula, J. - I.A. No. 3991/2021 (for delay in filing) in O.M.P. (COMM) 121/2021 & I.A. No. 3993/2021 (for delay in filing) in O.M.P. (COMM) 122/2021
1. By way of the applications noted above, the Petitioner seeks condonation of delay of 289 days in filing of the present petitions.
2. The learned counsel for the Petitioner states that the said period of three months expired during the lockdown enforced by Government of India in 2020. Supreme Court vide Order dated 8th March, 2021, has directed that the period from 15th March, 2020 till 14th March, 2021 shall stand excluded in computing the period of limitation. Thus, the present petitions are filed within time, and therefore, the afore-noted applications are infructuous. The learned counsel for the Respondents does not dispute this position.
3. In view of the above, the applications are disposed of.
O.M.P. (COMM) 121/2021 & O.M.P. (COMM) 122/2021 & I.A. Nos. 3990/2021 & 3992/2021 (for exemption)
4. The present petitions under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'] impugns the common Arbitral Award dated 22nd January, 2020 passed by the learned Sole Arbitrator in r
The appointment of the Arbitral Tribunal is an implied reference in terms of the Arbitration Agreement, and the court's jurisdiction under Section 34 of the Act is limited.
The court emphasized that an award should not be made in contravention of statutory provisions and should consider evidence and admissions. The court also highlighted the principle of severability of....
The dismissal of a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act was justified due to the petitioner's failure to meet limitation requirements, as procedural defects impeded timely filing.
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....
An arbitral award is valid only if signed by a majority of the tribunal, with reasons for any signature omissions provided; limitation for filing objections commences upon receipt of a valid award.
Point of law : Appointment Arbitrator - Arbitrator making necessary disclosures under Section 12(1) of the Act and not being ineligible under Section 12(5) of the Act.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of adhering to the prescribed limitation period under the Arbitration Act and the requirement for parties to exercise their rights....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that once an arbitral award becomes enforceable after the prescribed time limit, no further application under Section 33 of the Act can be entertai....
Adherence to time limits stipulated under the Arbitration Act and the requirement of due diligence in seeking condonation of delay.
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
