Back
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
R.D. Dhanuka, J
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited – Appellant
Versus
Unity Telecom Infrastructure Ltd. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. delay in filing arbitration petitions. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. representation and authorization in arbitration. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 3. court's observation on limitation period. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. limits of court's authority to condone delay. (Para 12) |
| 5. final order dismissing all motions. (Para 13) |
ORAL JUDGMENT :-
1. By consent of parties, these notices of motion which are for condonation of delay of various periods in filing the arbitration petitions under section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 were heard together and are disposed off by a common order.
2. According to the applicant, there was delay of about 29 days in filing Arbitration Petition (Lodging) Nos.1025 of 2017, 1026 of 2017 and 1027 of 2017.
3. According to the applicant, there is delay of more than 30 days beyond the period of three months in the other arbitration petitions.
4. The admitted fact is that the impugned arbitral award was rendered by the learned arbitrator on 3rd August, 2017. In paragraph 18 of the affidavit in support of the notice of motion, it is averred by the applicant that the learned arbitrator telephonically called Shri T.K. Joseph, Divisional Engineer, OFC Projec
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
