Allowed

Vishwajeetsing Raghunathraje Naik Nimbalkar v. Anush Kishor Shetty

Bombay HC18 Mar 2024ARP/60/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Joint application under Section 29A sought extension of the arbitral tribunal's mandate after the arbitrator's auditor recused himself mid-proceedings. Both counsel agreed to a one-year extension. The Court extended the mandate by 12 months, directing adherence to timelines.

What did the court decide?

Mandate of Arbitral Tribunal extended by 12 months from date of order; petition made absolute.

Vishwajeetsing Raghunathraje Naik Nimbalkar Vs Anush Kishor Shetty — Arbitration | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

1/2 (38)ARA-60-2024.odt

¶2

E-file

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

ARBITRATION PETITION NO.60 OF 2024

¶5

Vishwajeetsingh Raghunathraje Naik Nimbalkar & Anr.

¶6

.. Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

Anshul Shetty s/o Kishor Srinivas Shetty & Anr.

¶9

.. Respondents

¶10

Mr.Nikhil Dongre for the Petitioners.

¶11

Mr.Tejas Hartalkar, for the Respondents.

¶12

CORAM: BHARATI DANGRE, J. DATED : 18^th MARCH, 2024

¶13

P.C:-

¶14

1] The Application filed under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seek extension of the mandate of Arbitral Tribunal by a period of 6 months, but jointly, the learned counsel representing the Applicant and the Respondent, in the wake of sequence of events, request the Court to extend the mandate by one year.

¶15

2] By order dated 29.09.2021, the Sole Arbitrator was nominated to decide the dispute that arose between the parties out the of the LLP Agreement and the pleadings were completed on 21.01.2022 and thereafter the issues were settled by the Arbitrator.

¶16

Since the mandate expired, application for extension of the

¶17

rajshree

¶18

2/2 (38)ARA-60-2024.odt

¶19

mandate was preferred before this Court and by order dated 06.09.2023 it was extended by a period of six months from 21.07.2023.

¶20

3] During the pendency of the proceedings before the arbitral tribunal the interim award was passed on 30.11.2023 and an Auditor was appointed for conducting the audit. However, on 20.12.2023, the Auditor recused himself and therefore the new Auditor is in the process being appointed.

¶21

It is for the aforesaid reasons, the respective counsel representing the Applicant and the Respondent, are agreeable that the mandate of the Arbitrator Tribunal shall be extended by a period of 12 months from the date of passing of the order.

¶22

4] Though I am inclined to grant the said request, it must be kept in mind that the Arbitral Tribunal shall strictly adhere to the timeline and the parties shall render necessary cooperation.

¶23

In the wake of the above circumstances, the mandate of Arbitral Tribunal, is extended by a period of 12 months from today. Arbitration Petition is made absolute in the above terms.

¶24

( SMT. BHARATI DANGRE, J.)

¶25

rajshree

Vishwajeetsing Raghunathraje Naik Nimbalkar v. Anush Kishor Shetty

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vishwajeetsing Raghunathraje Naik Nimbalkar v. Anush Kishor Shetty

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

Foxymorom Media Solutions Private Limited vs Workamp Spaces Private Limited

Manjula Bholanath Singh Vs the State of Maharashtra

Mohd. Azad Mohd Sharif Farooqui Vs State of Maharashtra

Rajlaxmi Swayamrojga Seva Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit Thr. Its Chairman vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Principal Secretary and Anr.

Hussain Abu Khan Vs State of Maharashtra

Abdul Qayyum Alauddin Athania vs Hitech Hafiz Town Devlopers