Dismissed

M/S R.S. Bajaj Tea Company v. Rajasthan State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd.

Rajasthan HC23 Aug 2024CMAP/8/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought extension of arbitration proceedings under Section 29A(4) and (5). Respondent objected citing Supreme Court judgment regarding jurisdiction. Petitioner withdrew application with liberty to file before the correct court.

What the court decided

AI extract

M/S R.S. Bajaj Tea Company Vs Rajasthan State Food and Civil… — Arbitration | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:35743]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 8/2024

¶4

M/s R.S. Bajaj Tea Company, Proprietor Firm Its Office At 318, North Avenue P. No. D-468, North Avenue, Road No. 9A, V.k.i Area, Sikar Road, Jaipur-302013 (Raj.) Through Sole Proprietor Shri Ram Swaroop Bajaj

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Rajasthan State Food And Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd., 501, 5Th Floor, Kisan Bhawan, Lal Kothi, Tonk Road, Jaipur (Raj.) Through Managing Director.

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sandeep Pathak For Respondent(s) : Mr. Divanshu Gupta, Mr. Sachin Rathore for Mr. S. S. Naruka, AAG

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL

¶11

Order

¶12

23/08/2024

¶13

Instant application under Section 29A(4) and Section 29A(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 has been filed by and on behalf of applicant-M/s R. S. Bajaj Tea Company, seeking extension of period of four months to conclude the arbitration proceedings.

¶14

It has been pointed out that the arbitration proceedings are at fag end and at the stage of hearing the final argument.

¶15

Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent fundamentally, does not dispute the extension of period, considering the stage of arbitration proceedings pending before the Arbitrator, however pointed out that in view of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme

(2 of 2)

[2024:RJ-JP:35743]

[CMAP-8/2024]

Court in case of Chief Engineer (NH) PWD (ROADS) Vs. M/s

¶20

BSC 7 C AND C JV delivered in Special Leave to Appeal No.10544/2024, the present application for extension of time must be heard and decided by the Court, defined under Section 2 (e) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

¶21

Having faced with the contention and objection raised by counsel for the respondent, counsel for the applicant prays for withdrawal of this application, with liberty to file a fresh application before the Court, defined under Section 2(e) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in view of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Chief Engineer (NH) PWD (ROADS) ( supra ).

¶22

Accordingly, the instant application is dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty as prayed for.

¶23

Any other pending application, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶24

(SUDESH BANSAL),J

¶25

TN/167

M/S R.S. Bajaj Tea Company v. Rajasthan State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

M/S R.S. Bajaj Tea Company v. Rajasthan State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Jyoti Khanwani W/O Ishwar Khanwani, Vs Rajesh Khanwani Son of Pappu Nevraj

Ramesh Chand @ Ramesh Prakash Vs Smt Ram Kanwari and Ors.

Deepak Soni Son of Devraj Soni Vs Devraj Soni Son of Late Shri Bhanwarlal Soni

Maqsood Khan Vs State and Ors.

Jagdish Singh S/O Shri Jawahar Lal Alias Johri Lal Alia Jawahari Lal Choudhary Vs Smt. Kalawati Devi W/O Late Sh. Rajendra Singh

Dogfather India Private Limited Vs M/S J.B. Enterprises