Sharekhan Ltd. v. Padmaja Sanka
Case brief
What is this about?
Court condoned a 23-day delay in filing an arbitration petition, treated the explanation as satisfactory, and listed the petition for consideration.
What did the court decide?
Delay of 23 days is condoned. Petition listed on 16.06.2023.
What the court decided
9_NMS1_23.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1 OF 2023 IN
ARBITRATION PETITION (L) NO.1585 OF 2018
Sharekhan Limited … Applicant / Petitioner Vs.
Padmaja Sanka … Respondent
Mr. Deepak Sharma a/w. Ms. Megha Sharma and Ms. Pooja Pangale i/b. DMS Legal for Applicant / Petitioner.
CORAM : MANISH PITALE, J. DATE : MARCH 30, 2023
P.C. :
. In this notice of motion, this Court had issued notice on 18.12.2018. An affidavit of service is placed on record, which shows that although the notice could not be served by post, the applicant / petitioner had served the respondent by way of e-mail. The affidavit of service along with relevant documents is on record.
- By this notice of motion, the petitioner is seeking condonation of delay of 23 days in filing the accompanying petition. The reasons for delay are stated in paragraph 3 of the affidavit in support of the notice of motion. The respondent has not appeared before this Court to oppose the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner.
Parties & counsel
- applicant
Sharekhan Limited
- respondent
Padmaja Sanka
Coram
Manish Pitale
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
Ayesha Jimmy Moos vs Framroze Moos Trust and 4 Ors.
Asma Farid Noorani Vs Haji Ali Fresh Fruit Juices Hyderabad Haji Ali Fresh Fruit Juices and 3 Ors.
Dhananjay Vijaypal Singh and Rajkapoor Vijaypal Singh Vs L and T Finance Limited (Ersthwhile Known as Family Credit Company)
Bb Ipr Limited Vs the Registrar of Trade Marks