Allowed¶17

The Board of Mumbai Port Authority v. Rkec Projects Limited

Bombay HC16 Jan 2026IA/3230/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

restoration of arbitration petition; dismissal for non-removal of office objections; Rule 986 Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules 1980; public notice dated 26 August 2024; petitions lodged before 1 July 2024; eight weeks to remove objections; objections raised 17 January 2025; Commercial Arbitration Petition (L) No. 3434 of 2023; interim application allowed; three weeks to remove office objections; listing for admission; Mumbai Port Authority vs Rkec Projects Limited; Gauri Godse J.

What did the court decide?

Restoration of the arbitration petition, conditioned on the learned advocate for the petitioner removing all office objections within three weeks; the interim application was disposed of in those terms, with the petition to be listed for admission along with all other pending applications once the objections are removed.

The Board of Mumbai Port Authority vs Rkec Projects Limited — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶17

Issue for consideration

Whether the arbitration petition, which stood dismissed for non-removal of office objections after the eight-week window granted by the court's notice dated 26 August 2024 (objections having been raised only on 17 January 2025, beyond the window), should be restored.

¶13

Court's answer

The court verified from the case-status printout annexed to the application that office objections were raised only on 17 January 2025, i.e., outside the eight-week period granted by the notice dated 26 August 2024, and accepted the reasons stated in the application.

¶17

Ratio / Principle

The interim application is allowed and the arbitration petition is restored, subject to removal of all office objections by the petitioner's advocate within three weeks.

¶17

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Interim Application No. 3230 of 2025 in Commercial Arbitration Petition(L) No. 3434 of 2023, High Court of Judicature at Bombay (Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction), decided on 16 January 2026 by Gauri Godse, J. (sole judge). The Board of Mumbai Port Authority (Applicant/Petitioner) sought restoration of its arbitration petition against Rkec Projects Limited, which had been dismissed for non-removal of office objections. By a court-directed public notice dated 26 August 2024, arbitration petitions lodged before 1 July 2024 were given eight weeks from the date of notice to clear office objections, failing which they would stand rejected under Rule 986, Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules, 1980; the objections here were raised only on 17 January 2025, outside that window. Examining the notice and the case-status printout showing the late raising of objections, and accepting the reasons in the application, the court allowed the application and restored the petition, subject to removal of all office objections within three weeks, after which it is to be listed for admission together with all other pending applications.

¶1

15-ia-3230-2025-carbpl-3434-2023.doc

¶2

varsha

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 3230 OF 2025

¶4

¶5

COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION PETITION(L) NO. 3434 OF 2023

¶6

Digitally signed by VARSHA VARSHA VIJAY VIJAY RAJGURU RAJGURU Date:2026.01.17 14:13:53 +0530

¶7

The Board of Mumbai Port Authority … Applicant/Petitioner vs. Rkec Projects Limited … Respondent

¶8

Adv. Roopdaksha Basu , Ms. Heenal Wadhwa i/b. Law Point for the Applicant/Petitioner.

¶9

Mr. Harshad Shingnapurkar for the Respondent.

¶10

CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J. DATED : 16^th JANUARY 2026

¶11

ORDER:

¶12

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 3230 OF 2025 .

¶13

This application is for restoration of the arbitration petition which stood dismissed for non removal of office objections. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that as per the directions by this court a notice dated 26^th August 2024 was published granting time in all the arbitration petitions lodged before 1^st July 2024, to remove office objections within eight weeks from the date of notice, failing which the petitions would stand rejected under Rule 986, of the Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules, 1980. He submits that office objections were raised, only on 17^th January 2025, which is evident from the case status. He therefore submits that it was not

¶14

Page no. 1 of 2

¶15

15-ia-3230-2025-carbpl-3434-2023.doc

¶16

possible for the learned advocate for the petitioner to remove office objections within eight weeks time that was granted vide notice dated 26^th August 2024. He further submits that on checking the case status, the petitioner’s advocate learnt that the petition stood dismissed for non-removal of office objections. Hence, this application was immediately filed for restoration. He therefore submits that sometime be granted to remove office objections and the petition be restored.

¶17

I have perused the notice dated 26^th August 2024, which is tendered and taken on record. The print out of the case status annexed to the application indicates that the objections were raised only on 17^th January 2025. Hence, in the facts and circumstances of the case and for the reasons stated in the application, the application is allowed and the arbitration petition is restored, subject to the learned advocate for the petitioner removing all office objections within three weeks from today.

¶18

Interim Application is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

¶19

After the objections are removed, the arbitration petition be

¶20

listed for admission along with all other pending applications.

¶21

(GAURI GODSE, J.)

¶22

Page no. 2 of 2

The Board of Mumbai Port Authority v. Rkec Projects Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Board of Mumbai Port Authority v. Rkec Projects Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Safiya Abdul Hamid Kungle and Ors. vs Iqbal Ahmed Hussain Kungle Since Deceased Thr Lrs. Zakir Iqbal Kungle and Ors.

Mohan Prabhakar Amre vs the State of Maharashtra Thr the Competent Authority and Districtt Dpeuty Registrar and 3

Devram Dada Chavan Deceased Bhausaheb Devram Chavan vs Milind Sahebrao Chavan

Idbi Trusteeship Services Limited vs Ozone Infra Con Private Limited

Anchor Point Developers Private Limited 847/2024 vs Om Samruddhi Sites Private Limited

Tata Motors Finance Solution Ltd. vs C M Smith and Sons Limited