Allowed

Ray Constructions Limited v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.

Bombay HC11 Apr 2023IA/100/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Bombay High Court considered an interim application seeking condonation of a 25-day delay in filing a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Court held that sufficient cause was made out for condoning the delay and allowed the application, listing the matter for further consideration.

What did the court decide?

Application for condonation of delay allowed; petition listed for further consideration on 16th June, 2023.

Ray Constructions Limited Vs Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. — Arbitration | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

6_IA_100_19.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 100 OF 2019

¶3

WITH

¶4

ARBITRATION PETITION (LODGING) NO. 1209 OF 2019

¶5

Ray Constructions Limited … Applicant/Petitioner vs. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited … Respondent

¶6

M. S. Dehlvi for applicant/petitioner.

¶7

S. R. Page for respondent.

¶8

CORAM : MANISH PITALE, J DATE : 11^th APRIL, 2023

¶9

P.C. :

¶10

. The present petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, is listed with an application seeking condonation of delay of 25 days in filing the petition.

¶11

The impugned award is dated 10^th June, 2019. The petition was filed on 5^th October, 2019 and thereafter, it was never listed before this Court. It was only on specific directions given by this Court to list such matters, filed and kept pending before this Court, that the present petition, alongwith the application, has seen the light of the day.

¶12

When the petition is called out for hearing, this Court was informed that even the respondent is aggrieved by the award and that Arbitration Petition No.1151/2019 has been filed.

¶13

1/2

¶14

6_IA_100_19.doc

¶15

The application seeking condonation of delay states that the petition was filed after a delay of 25 days, beyond the 3 months period, specified under Section 34(3) of the said Act, for challenging the arbitral award. Although the learned counsel for the respondent opposes the prayer made in the present application, this Court has considered the reasons stated in the application seeking condonation of delay. The reasons are stated in paragraph Nos.2(2) to 2(7). This Court is convinced that sufficient cause is made out for condonation of delay and the application deserves to be allowed.

¶16

Accordingly, the application is allowed and the delay is condoned.

¶17

List the petition for further consideration on 16^th June, 2023.

¶18

Reply affidavit, if any, be filed on behalf of the respondent, within four weeks from today.

¶19

Rejoinder affidavit, if any, be filed within two weeks thereafter.

¶20

The registry is directed to ensure that Arbitration Petition No.1151/2019 is also listed alongwith the present petition on 16^th June, 2023.

¶21

(MANISH PITALE, J)

¶22

Priya Kambli

¶23

Digitally signed by PRIYA PRIYA KAMBLI KAMBLI Date: 2023.04.12 12:30:48 +0530

¶24

2/2

Ray Constructions Limited v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ray Constructions Limited v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sitara Shipping Limited Vs Evershine Shipping and Logistics

Shubham Epc Private Limited Previously Known as Shubham Civil Projects Private Limited Vs Office of Development Commissioner (Msme) Ministry of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprise and Anr.

Sun Pharma Laboratories Limited Vs J. M. Laboratories and Anr.

Bharat Dinkarrai Adhiya Vs India Infoline Finance Ltd. and 2 Ors.

Methodical Mind Llc Vs the Registrar of Trade Marks and Anr.

Pappu Farishta and Anr. Vs Bajaj Electricals Limited