Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR
SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, CHANDRA PRAKASH SHRIMALI
Continental Engineering Corporation Limited – Appellant
Versus
Jaipur Metro Rail Corporation – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.
1. By way of this Special Appeal (Civil), preferred under Section 37 (1)(c) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for brevity, "the Act of 1996”) read with Section 13(1A) of the Commercial Court Act, 2015, (for short "the Act of 2015"), the appellant has challenged the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 02.03.2022 whereby S.B. Arbitration Application No.117/2018 preferred by it under Section 34 of the Act of 1996 read with Section 10(1) of the Act of 2015 was dismissed by holding that there is no application under Section 34 of the Act of 1996 before him and the application moved under Section 10(1) of the Act of 2015 was not maintainable.
I. Factual Aspects:
2. The appellant is a company incorporated under the laws of Taiwan engaged in the business of civil construction, building construction and related works in various countries including India. On arising of a dispute between the appellant and the respondent Jaipur Metro Rail Corporation (for short, "JMRC"), arbitration proceedings were taken up by the Arbitral Tribunal comprising of Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vikramajit Sen (Retd.), Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mukul Mudgal (Retd.) and Mr
A wrong heading on an application does not negate its purpose; the court must consider the contents for adjudication purposes. Delay due to pursuing an incorrect forum may be condoned under applicabl....
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....
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....
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 ....
The Court emphasized the importance of providing sufficient cause for delay in filing Objections under Section 34 of the Act, 1996 and highlighted the inflexibility of the limitation period.
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
