Order disposing of interlocutory applications for impleadment and condonation of delay in an arbitration application.
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.
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
MAIN CASE No: Arbitration Application No.113 of 2024
PROCEEDING SHEET
| S. No |
DATE | ORDER | OFFICE NOTE |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2. | 12.07.2024 | CJ I.A.No.1 of 2024 |
|
| Ms. V. Soubhagya Valli, learned counsel represents Mr. V. Seetharama Avadhani, learned counsel for the applicants. Heard on I.A.No.1 of 2024. For the reasons assigned in the application, duly supported by an affidavit, the applicants are granted leave to implead proposed respondent No.20 as respondent No.20 in the arbitration application. In the result, the interlocutory application is allowed. |
|||
| _________ CJ (AAJ) |
|||
| I.A.No.2 of 2024 | |||
| Ms. V. Soubhagya Valli, learned counsel represents Mr. V. Seetharama Avadhani, learned counsel for the applicants. Heard on I.A.No.2 of 2024. For the reasons assigned in the application, duly supported by an affidavit, I find that sufficient cause for condonation of delay of 266 days in representing the arbitration application is made out. |
| In the result, delay | in repres | enting the |
|---|---|---|
| arbitration application is | condoned | and the |
| interlocutory application is all | owed. | |
| _________ CJ (AAJ) |
||
| Arbitration Application Arbitration application (vide separate order) (B/o.) ES |
No.113 of is allowed. |
2024 |
V. Seetharama Avadhani
CJ (AAJ)
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
