Karnataka HC Notices Sri Lankan Judge's Rights Plea
07 Mar 2026
Karnataka Proposes Social Media Ban for Under-16s
07 Mar 2026
Justice Dharmadhikari Sworn In as 55th Madras HC Chief Justice
07 Mar 2026
Punjab HC Acquits Ram Rahim in Journalist Murder
07 Mar 2026
Appellate Courts Can Rely on Unexhibited Public Documents Produced by Plaintiff: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Under Section 100 CPC
07 Mar 2026
Punjab & Haryana HC Denies Anticipatory Bail in Murder via Humiliation Case: Sections 103(1) & 3(5) BNS
07 Mar 2026
Security Deposit Forfeiture Without Show-Cause Notice Violates Natural Justice: Himachal Pradesh High Court
07 Mar 2026
S.202 CrPC Inquiry Not Mandatory for Public Servant Complaints If Accused Outside Jurisdiction: Supreme Court
09 Mar 2026
Professor MP Singh: Shaper of Constitutional Discourse
09 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA,THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR
P. Nagender Reddy – Appellant
Versus
The State of Telangana – Respondent
THE HON’BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA AND THE HON’BLE JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.33264 of 2023 Mr. D. Damodar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya)
1. The present Writ Petition has been filed challenging an Arbitral Award dated 12.10.2021. The Writ Petition was filed on
01.12.2023.
2. The prayer in the Writ Petition is for a declaration that the execution proceedings initiated by the respondent No.3 in E.P.Nos.250/2022 and 47/2023 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Wanaparthy, for enforcement of the impugned Award is illegal. The petitioners have also sought a declaration that the execution proceedings filed by the respondent No.3 for enforcement of the Award is illegal and contrary to law. The petitioners have not prayed for any stay of the execution proceedings filed by the respondent No.3.
3. We have heard learned couns
The execution of an arbitral award must adhere to established legal procedures, and any order lacking jurisdiction is considered void.
The execution of an arbitral award must comply with statutory procedures; failure to do so renders the order void.
Judicial interference in arbitration proceedings under Articles 226 and 227 is limited to exceptional circumstances, emphasizing respect for arbitral awards and the need to minimize court involvement....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of adhering to the prescribed limitation period under the Arbitration Act and the requirement for parties to exercise their rights....
The court held that an arbitral award passed beyond statutory timelines may still be valid if the parties impliedly consented to extension, while dual legal challenges to the same award are impermiss....
The objector in enforcement proceedings of a foreign arbitration award must furnish convincing proof as mandated by Section 48 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The limitation period for challenging an arbitral award under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is strict and non-extendable, emphasizing the need for timely recourse to mai....
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
Listen Article