This order dismisses Arbitration Petition No. 41 of 2019 seeking appointment of a Sole Arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, for want of prosecution due to the absence of the petitioners on the hearing date.
Petition dismissed in default for want of prosecution.
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.
1/1 22 ARP-41-2019 .doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 41 OF 2019
Mr. Bhupinder Ladulal Jain And Anr .. Petitioners
Versus
Smt. Geeta Anil Raut And Anr .. Respondents
None for the petitioner. Mr. Dilip Bodake for respondent no.1 and 2.
CORAM: BHARATI DANGRE, J. DATED : 9th JANUARY 2024
P.C:-
1 None for the Petitioners.
The petition filed in the year 2019 under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seek appointment of the Sole Arbitrator.
On 28/11/2023, the Court recorded absence of the petitioners and the matter was directed to be listed for further hearing.
It appear that the petitioners are not interested in proceeding the matter, hence, the same is dismissed in default for want of prosecution.
( SMT. BHARATI DANGRE, J.)
Ashish
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the arbitration petition should be allowed on the date of hearing despite absence of petitioners.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Mr. Bhupinder Ladulal Jain And Anr
Smt. Geeta Anil Raut And Anr
Bharati Dangre
As recorded by the court registry
2 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
