SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Tri) 4

APARESH KUMAR SINGH, ARINDAM LODH
Ashes Deb – Appellant
Versus
State of Tripura – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
Mr. Somik Deb, Senior Advocate and Mr. P Chakraborty, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. P Sahu, Advocate, for the Respondent

JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)

Aparesh Kumar Singh, CJ. - The primary question involved in these two appeals is whether an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, as amended (for short, the Act) before the learned Commercial Court, West Tripura, Agartala was barred by the delay being beyond the period of three months and thirty days in terms of Section 34 (3) of the Act and its proviso.

2. The appellant is a contractor who has raised three more grounds of challenge in the present appeal preferred under Section 37 (1)(c) of the Act read with Section 13 (1-A) of the Commercial Courts Act , 2015 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 2015), i.e. (ii) Whether the learned Commercial Court, West Tripura at Agartala had the jurisdiction to entertain a petition under Section 34 of the Act as the subject matter of the dispute pertains to Longtharai Valley which is in Dhalai District? (iii) Whether the Court of Additional District Judge, West Tripura at Agartala would be the competent court as prescribed under Section 2(1)(e) of the Act read with Section 10 of the Act of 2015? and (iv) whether the explanations offered by the respondent seeking condonation of dela

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top