Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
LAPITA BANERJI
Haryana Agro-Industries Corporation Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Devi Dayal Sachin Kumar – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of arbitration and settlement. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. limitation on claims related to arbitration agreements. (Para 8 , 10 , 12 , 13) |
| 3. court's ruling on the validity of claims and satisfaction. (Para 9 , 11 , 14) |
JUDGMENT :
Lapita Banerji, J.
CM-14344-CII-2019
This is an application for condonation of delay of 28 days in filing the appeal.
Perused the grounds in the application.
Such grounds are found to be sufficient.
The application is allowed and delay of 28 days in filing the appeal is condoned.
MAIN CASE
Under challenge in the present appeal is the arbitration award dated September 12, 2016 and the judgment dated December 15, 2018 passed by the Additional District Judge, Panchkula, in an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1996 Act').
2. The appellant-claimant instituted the arbitration proceedings due to the failure on the part of the respondents-miller to supply the requisite quantity of Custom Milled Rice (CMR) for the crop year 2008-09. An agreement was entered into between the parties on October 03, 2008 for milling the paddy as per the terms and conditions stipulate
Claims arising under arbitration agreements must adhere to stipulated limitation periods, and prior satisfaction accepted by a creditor bars reopening such claims.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that an arbitration clause conferring exclusive right on one party to appoint the arbitrator cannot be enforced, and the court has the jurisdiction....
The court has jurisdiction to appoint an arbitrator when an arbitration clause is unenforceable due to exclusivity in appointing rights, ensuring that disputes are resolved effectively.
The period of limitation under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act should exclude non-working days, allowing for sufficient cause extension beyond three months.
The court adopted a liberal and justice-oriented approach in the matter of condonation of delay, allowing the delay of 23 days to be condoned as sufficient cause was explained by the DDA.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the doctrine of condonation of delay should be applied judiciously, taking into account the circumstances and the impact of external factors s....
The law of limitation applies equally to all parties, including the Government, and a lack of diligence in filing appeals can result in rejection of delay condonation applications.
The court may condone delays in filing appeals where sufficient cause is shown, including circumstances beyond a party's control, advocated particularly in light of unprecedented events like a pandem....
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.
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
