Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Jammu & Kashmir High Court

Spicejet Limited vs Snowlines Air Links on 2 April, 2024

Author: Sanjeev Kumar

Bench: Sanjeev Kumar

                                                                       Sr.No. 03

               HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
                             AT JAMMU
                                                      AA No.32/2005
                                                      IA No.41/2005


Spicejet Limited                                                        ....Petitioner(s)

                   Through :- None


         V/s

Snowlines Air Links
                                                                      ....Respondent(s)


                   Through :- Mr. Sudershan Kumar, Advocate
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE

                                    ORDER

02.04.2024 This is an application under Section 34 of the Jammu and Kashmir Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1997 seeking setting aside an award dated 26.05.2002 passed by the learned Arbitrator - Justice G.L.Raina (Retd.) This application is pending in this Court since the year 2005 and has been adjourned on many occasions on the request of the petitioner.

The impugned award is challenged primarily on the ground that the learned Arbitrator without serving upon the petitioner any notice conducted ex- parte proceedings resulting into an ex-parte award against it. The petitioner has narrated some circumstances in which the then company-Modiluft Limited changed its name to Spicejet Limited with the approval of the Registrar of Companies. It is submitted that fresh certificate of incorporation was issued on 28.04.2005 by the Registrar of Companies, Delhi. It is submitted that there was change in address of the registered office of the petitioner company and, therefore, notices issued by the Arbitrator at its earlier address were never 1 received. These are the averments made in the petitioner, which would require proof to substantiate them.

Since the petitioner is not coming forward to contest this petition, as such, the ground of challenge remains unsubstantiated.

Be that as it is, since nobody has come up to argue on behalf of the petitioner despite the fact that the case has been called twice, this Court is left with no option but to dismiss the petition for non-prosecution.

Ordered accordingly.

(Sanjeev Kumar) Judge Jammu:

02.04.2024 Vinod, PS Whether order is reportable: Yes/No Vinod Kumar 2024.04.02 17:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document