IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N. ANAND VENKATESH, J
S.V.Saranya – Appellant
Versus
Supreme Foundation Partnership Firm – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. application for extension despite withdrawal. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. court's role in facilitating dispute resolution. (Para 5) |
| 3. scope of adjudication under section 29a. (Para 6 , 7) |
O R D E R
This application has been filed under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 , seeking for extension of time for the completion of the arbitration proceedings between the applicant and the respondents.
2. The 6th respondent has filed a detailed counter affidavit and has brought to the notice of this Court that the 6th respondent, who was the claimant, sought withdrawal of the claim and in spite of the same, the said request was rejected and that the 6th respondent is not interested in prosecuting the claim any more.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the 6th respondent submitted that if the claimant is not interested in prosecuting the claim, no useful purpose will be served in extending the period for the completion of the arbitration proceedings.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has made counterclaim and therefore, even if the claimant does not want to prosecute the claim, that will not result in the automatic clo
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.