Allowed

Sachin Coproration v. Kusuma Bhandary Construction Pvt. Ltd.

Bombay HC8 May 2024ARBP/136/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Arbitration petitions under Section 29A sought extension of the arbitrator's mandate that expired on 14/02/2023. The respondent raised no objection. The Court extended the mandate by one year as prayed, with cross-examination pending, but made clear no further extension would be granted.

What did the court decide?

Mandate of the arbitrator extended by one year; petitions made absolute; no further extension to be granted.

Sachin Coproration vs Kusuma Bhandary Construction Pvt. Ltd. — Arbitration | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

1/2 6 ARBP L 29566-23 C.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶3

ARBITRATION PETITION (L) NO. 29566 OF 2023

¶4

(order stands corrected as per order dated 8/05/2024)

¶5

Sachin Corporation & Anr

¶6

.. Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

Kusuma Bhandary Construction Pvt Ltd .. Respondent

¶9

WITH ARBITRATION PETITION (L) NO.29581 OF 2023

¶10

Sachin Corporation & Anr .. Petitioners

¶11

Versus

¶12

Kusuma Bhandri Developers Pvt Ltd .. Respondent

¶13

Ms. Bhagyashri Mangale i/b E.A. Sasi for the petitioners.

¶14

CORAM: BHARATI DANGRE, J. DATED : 3^rd JANUARY 2024

¶15

P.C:-

¶16

1 The two Petitions, filed under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seek extension of the mandate of the arbitrator since it expired on 14/02/2023.

¶17

2 By order dated 20/12/2023, the petitioners were directed to serve the respondent and place an affidavit of service on record. Accordingly, the communication was exchanged with the respondent and it was informed that the matter was scheduled for hearing on 20/12/2023, and they shall secure their presence.

¶18

Responding to the said communication the respondent has expressed their no objection to grant extension to the mandate of the Arbitrator.

¶19

Ashish

¶20

2/2 6 ARBP L 29566-23 C.doc

¶21

3 On hearing the counsel for the petitioners and on perusal of the petition, it is evident that by an order dated 14/02/2022, the Sole Arbitrator was appointed and the petitions have highlighted the various steps, which were taken during the course of the arbitral proceedings.

¶22

It is also informed that there is a counter claim filed by the respondent and the proceedings before the Arbitrator are presently scheduled for fixing the date of cross examination of the claimants witness.

¶23

4 Though for the completeness of proceedings, I deem it appropriate to grant extension of one year, as prayed for, it is made clear that no further extension shall be granted as the reference is entered into on 14/08/2021, despite he being appointed on 3/07/2018.

¶24

In any case, for the reasons stated in the petitions, I deem it appropriate to extend the mandate of arbitrator by period of one year with a clear understanding to the parties that there shall be no further extension.

¶25

Arbitration Petitions are made absolute in the aforesaid

¶26

terms.

¶27

( SMT. BHARATI DANGRE, J.)

¶28

Ashish

Sachin Coproration v. Kusuma Bhandary Construction Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sachin Coproration v. Kusuma Bhandary Construction Pvt. 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Kailas Gajanan Somase and Ors. vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Its Chief Secretary and Ors.

Jaikumar Dashrath Jaya Vs Rupesh Babanrao Thorat

Rahul Shravan Gaikwad Vs State of Maharashtra

Siyaram Silk Mills Ltd. vs 99YRS Network LLP

Mumbai Shahar Berojgar Seva Sahakari Sanstha Federation Limited vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (Mcgm)

Mohd Khalil Mohd Jalil Salmani Vs the State of Maharashtra