Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
CHANDRA DHARI SINGH
Prabhat Dairy Limited – Appellant
Versus
Snup Fresh Milk & Diary Products Pvt. Ltd. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of the agreement and disputes. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. petitioner's arguments against the award. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. respondent's arguments regarding petition filing defects. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. court's observations on filing timelines and defects. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 28 , 29) |
| 5. final order dismissing the petition. (Para 30 , 31) |
ORDER
Chandra Dhari Singh, J. (Oral)--The instant petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter "Arbitration Act") has been filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking setting aside of Award dated 29th June 2019 passed by the Sole Arbitrator.
2. A perusal of the record reveals that an Agreement was entered into between the parties on 2nd June 2016 for supply of Ghee, which was valid for 2 years. The parties exchanged e-mails and telephonic conversations to work the terms and conditions of the agreement as well as to discuss the quantity, price and other relevant details of the order to be placed. Thereafter, disputes arose between the parties with respect to the quantity requirement and the price thereto and it is the claim of the petitioner that the respond
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 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 Court emphasized the importance of due diligence and dispatch in exercising the right to challenge an Arbitral Award within the prescribed time, as per the provisions of the Arbitration Act.
The law of limitation aims to prevent outdated, fictitious, or fraudulent claims and requires parties to exercise their rights within the prescribed time. The Court emphasized the need for due dilige....
Adherence to time limits stipulated under the Arbitration Act and the requirement of due diligence in seeking condonation of delay.
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....
The judgment establishes the strict interpretation and application of the limitation period under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration Act, emphasizing the requirement for sufficient cause and the mandat....
Scanned signed copy of the award/order of the Arbitral Tribunal to the parties would be a valid delivery as envisaged under Section 31(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
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
