RAJESH BINDAL
M. G. Contractors Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana – Respondent
Rajesh Bindal, J.
Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 10.9.2014 passed by the learned court below, whereby, the learned court below dismissed the objections raised by the petitioner regarding maintainability of the application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short "the Arbitration Act") and further permitted the respondent- State to lead evidence.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the case in hand, an agreement was executed between the petitioner and the State regarding construction of road. As there were certain disputes, vide order dated 24.5.2010 passed by this Court in Arbitration Case No.112 of 2008, Arbitrator was appointed, who passed the award dated 21.12.2010. Copy thereof was received by the respondent-State on 27.12.2010. An application for recalling the award was filed by the State before the Arbitrator on 23.8.2011, which was dismissed on 8.10.2011. Thereafter, the State filed application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act before the court on 12.11.2011. In terms of Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, the application could be filed within a period of three months from the date of
Assam Urban Water Supply and Sew. Board v. M/s Subash Projects and Marketing Ltd.
Coal India Limited v. Ujjal Transport Agency
Gulbarga University v. Mallikarjun S. Kodagali
M/s Consolidated Engg. Enterprises v. Principal Secy. Irrigation Deptt.
State of Goa v. M/s Western Builders
Union of India v. Popular Constructions Co. 2001 (8) SCC 470.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.