Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, SANGEETA SHARMA
Rajasthan State Ganganagar Sugar Mills Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Premier Alcobev Pvt. Ltd., Through Its Authorized Signatory Mr. Ashu Malik – Respondent
ORDER :
1. Heard.
2. The challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by the learned Commercial Court dated 11.09.2025, whereby the objections raised by the appellant in terms of Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short ‘the Act of 1996’), were rejected and the award was upheld.
3. Mr. Vikram Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the appellant submits that learned Commercial Court as well as learned Arbitrator have failed to take into consideration the reasons, which were taken into consideration by the appellant for deducting the amount of Rs.38,23,200/-, from the security deposit. It is submitted that there was a palpable and deliberate delay in installment and learned Arbitrator has erred in holding that there was no delay on the part of the claimant.
4. The question whether there has been a delay or not, is a pure question of fact. Learned Arbitrator, after considering the statement and the documents which had come on record, reached to the conclusion that the delay in getting the requisite licenses, cannot be held to be on the claimant’s accounts.
5. Such a finding arrived at, cannot be a ground to interfere in terms of Section 34 of the Act of 1996, which
Point of Law; If the Appellate Court for the first time goes into the grounds urged and gives its own findings, perhaps one of the parties will be deprived of a right of statutory appeal provided in ....
Limitations under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act are strict, and additional proceedings or negotiations do not extend the prescribed three-month period for filing objections.
The court affirmed that judicial intervention in arbitral awards is limited to grounds of public policy or patent illegality, emphasizing respect for the Arbitrator's findings.
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 main legal point established in the judgment is the limited power of the court under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to set aside an arbitral award and the prohibition on....
Substantial delay in pronouncing an arbitral award undermines justice and can be grounds for setting aside the award under public policy considerations.
The court emphasized the importance of adhering to the prescribed period for setting aside an award, the exclusion of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, and the court's discretion to condone the delay ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the limitation period for challenging an award under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is strict and cannot be extended be....
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
