Bellary Nirmithi Kendra vs Capital Metal Industries on 21 January, 2020

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Bombay High Court

Bellary Nirmithi Kendra vs Capital Metal Industries on 21 January, 2020

Bench: G.S. Patel

                                                          18-ARBPL1452-19.DOC




 Atul


      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
           ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
         ARBITRATION PETITION (L) NO. 1452 OF 2019
                                  WITH
                INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1 OF 2020


 Bellray Nirmithi Kendra                                           ...Petitioner
        Versus
 Capital Metal Industries                                        ...Respondent


Ms Alpana Ghone, with Rohan Savant & Praveer Shetty, i/b Res
     Legal, for the Petitioner.
Ms Krutika Patil, i/b Amol Joshi, for the Respondent.


                               CORAM:           G.S. PATEL, J.

                               DATED:           21st January 2020
 PC:-

1. The Interim Application is for stay under Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996.

2. I cannot grant this relief. The Petition itself is completely time barred.

3. The Award in question was passed on 17th November 2017. The Petitioner admittedly received a copy on 22nd November 2017. The Section 34 Petition was not fled till 28th November 2019.

Page 1 of 2

21st January 2020 ::: Uploaded on - 22/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2020 16:54:49 ::: 18-ARBPL1452-19.DOC

4. Ms Ghone on instructions contends that for a substantial portion of the intervening period, the Petitioner was bona fde pursuing Writ Petition No. 4523 of 2018 challenging a statutory provision of the Micro Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act 2006. That Writ Petition was disposed of on 17th September 2019 granting liberty to pursue the remedies under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996.

5. That order of the Division Bench in the Writ Petition does not itself save limitation. On any reckoning, even the Writ Petition would not save time. The reason is that the time for fling the Section 34 Petition began on 22nd November 2017. The Petitioner had 90 days plus, with leave of this Court, no more than an additional 30 days in which to fle its Section 34 petition. That extended period of 120 days would have ended on 22nd March 2018. The Writ Petition itself was fled only on 3rd April 2018. Therefore, on the date the Writ Petition was fled, the remedy under Section 34 was already time-barred.

6. However much Ms Ghone urges me to have a look at the Award, I do not think that is permissible in law.

7. The Interim Application and the Petition are dismissed. No costs.

(G. S. PATEL, J) Page 2 of 2 21st January 2020 ::: Uploaded on - 22/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2020 16:54:49 :::

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Bombay High Court