Petitioner challenged appointment order of Arbitrator for non-compliance with 30-day timeline. Court held appointment was valid and matter dismissed.
Petition dismissed. No order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
25.arbp.785.2015.doc
dik
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 785 OF 2015
Vijay Hiralal Jaiswal ...Petitioner vs Maharashtra Industrial Development Corp.& Ors. ...Respondents
None for the Petitioner. Mr C.M.Lokesh i/b A.R.Bhole & Co. for Respondent Nos.1 to 5. .....
CORAM : S.C. GUPTE, J.
FEBRUARY 22, 2016
P.C. :
None for the Petitioner. The Petition is under Sections 14 and 15 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The ground urged by the Petitioner is that the Arbitrator appointed under the order of this Court has failed in acting within 30 days from the date of receipt of invocation of the arbitration and has forfeited his right to act as an Arbitrator. The Arbitrator has been duly appointed under an order passed by this Court on 2 September 2010 and nomination is made by the appointing authority within the time assigned by this Court. Learned counsel for the Respondent submits that the Arbitrator is in the process of conducting the reference. There is no merit in the Petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs.
( S.C.GUPTE J. )
Pg 1 of 1
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Arbitrator forfeited his right to act due to failing to act within 30 days from the date of receipt of invocation?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Vijay Hiralal Jaiswal
Maharashtra Industrial Development Corp.
S. C. Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
