Nagnechi Construction Pvt. Ltd. vs Hella Infra Market Ltd. and 4… — Arbitration | Bombay HC (2025)

Nagnechi Construction Pvt. Ltd. vs Hella Infra Market Ltd. and 4… — Arbitration | Bombay HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No final relief; interlocutory directions only — Respondent No. 5 (the arbitral institution) to file an affidavit confirming whether the Arbitral Award was served on the Petitioner in August 2021, no later than July 7, 2025; copies of the order to be served on Respondent No. 5 by the parties' advocates and the Registry; matter stood over to July 8, 2025. Neither limitation nor recall of the April 15, 2025 order was finally decided.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Petition under Section 34 of the Act is hopelessly time-barred, beyond the Court's power to condone delay, if the Arbitral Award was in fact served on the Petitioner in 2021. +1 more

Court's answer

Considering that the Petitioner had made its submissions on oath in an affidavit, the Court held it appropriate to call upon Respondent No. 5 to confirm on oath what precisely was done in August 2021 and whether the arbitral Award had been served on the Petitioner, no later than July 7, 2025.

Ratio / Principle

Learned Advocates for Respondent No. 1 and the Petitioner undertook to serve a copy of the order on Respondent No. 5, and the Registry was directed to serve the order on Respondent No. 5 calling upon it to file an affidavit in this regard no later than July 7, 2025.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Somasekhar Sundaresan, J.), order dated June 17, 2025 in Arbitration Petition No. 78 of 2024, Nagnechi Construction Pvt. Ltd. v. Hella Infra Market Ltd. and 4 Ors., under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. On the Respondents' contention, supported by an affidavit of Respondent No. 1 enclosing a letter dated August 6, 2021 and a postal-department acknowledgment receipt, that the Petitioner had received a copy of the Arbitral Award despatched by Respondent No. 5 (the institution that conducted the arbitration) four years earlier — which, if true, would render the Section 34 Petition hopelessly time-barred beyond the Court's power to condone delay — the Court declined to decide the point immediately and instead directed Respondent No. 5 to state on oath what was done in August 2021 and whether the Award had been served on the Petitioner, by affidavit to be filed no later than July 7, 2025. Copies of the order were to be served on Respondent No. 5 by the parties' advocates and the Registry; the matter stood over to July 8, 2025. No final view was taken on limitation or on the recall of the Court's order dated April 15, 2025.

15-ARBP-78-2024 copy.docx

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

Digitally signed by SHRADDHA SHRADDHA KAMLESH KAMLESH TALEKAR TALEKAR Date: 2025.06.23 15:39:03 +0530

ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 78 OF 2024 ALONGWITH INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 33895 OF 2022 IN

ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 78 OF 2024

Nagnechi Construction Pvt. Ltd. …Petitioner Versus Hella Infra Market Ltd. And 4 Ors. …Respondents

The Petitioner was represented but appearance has not been submitted.

Mr. Amrut Joshi i/b Mr. Shivraj Patne & Mr. Shon Gadgil, for Respondents.

CORAM : SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, J.

Date : June 17, 2025

Order :

This is a Petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“ the Act ”).

Learned Counsel for the Respondents has entered appearance and submits that the order dated April 15, 2025 may have to be recalled because according to the Respondents, the Petitioner was in receipt of a letter dated August 6, 2021 which enclosed a copy of the Arbitral Award, which appears to

Page 1 of 3 June 17, 2025

Shraddha

15-ARBP-78-2024 copy.docx

have been delivered to the Petitioner pursuant to despatch by Respondent No. 5, the institution that conducted the arbitration.

Towards this end, an affidavit has been filed on behalf of Respondent No. 1 enclosing a letter dated August 6, 2021 addressed to each of the two parties and an acknowledgment receipt of the postal department, which he relies upon to indicate that Respondent No. 5 had actually served the arbitral Award on the Petitioner four years ago.

Should such service has been effected in 2021, it would follow that the approach to this Court would be hopelessly time-barred beyond the power of this Court to condone the delay in approaching this Court under Section 34 of the Act.

Towards this end, considering that the Petitioner has made its submissions on oath in an affidavit, it will be only appropriate to call upon Respondent No. 5 to confirm the position as to what precisely was done in August 2021 and to state on oath, whether or not the arbitral Award had been served on the Petitioner. Respondent No. 5 may do so no later than July 7, 2025 .

Page 2 of 3 June 17, 2025

Shraddha

15-ARBP-78-2024 copy.docx

Learned Advocates for both Respondent No.1 as well as the Petitioner undertake to serve a copy of this order on Respondent No. 5. Registry is also directed to serve a copy of this order on Respondent No. 5 calling upon to file an affidavit in this regard, no later than July 7, 2025 so that the matter could be considered on the next date.

Stand over to July 8, 2025.

All actions required to be taken pursuant to this order, shall be taken upon receipt of a downloaded copy as available on this Court’s website.

[ SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, J.]

Page 3 of 3 June 17, 2025

Shraddha