Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (1.35 seconds)Section 34 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. vs Saboo Minerals Pvt. Ltd. on 18 July, 2003
10...... One of the main purposes for the re- enactment of the
arbitration law was to allow adjudication of disputes by
arbitration expeditiously. Seen in this light, it will be found
that the period of 30 days provided for preferring the
application under Section 33 of the Act is not extendable
inasmuch as unless the application is so preferred, there is
O.M.P. (COMM) 191/2016 Page 4
no Arbitrator thereafter. We find that the same conclusion
has been reached in UOI vs. Saboo Minerals Pvt. Ltd., 106
(2003) DLT 92 and in Ircon International Ltd. vs. Budhraja
Mining & Constructions Ltd. MANU/DE/8647/2007 by
Single Judges of this Court.
S.P.S. Rana vs Mtnl & Ors. on 14 January, 2010
7. This Court in S.P.S Rana (Supra) considered the effect of an
application under Section 33 of the Act being filed beyond the period
of thirty days on the period of limitation under Section 34(3) of the
Act and held as under:-
Ircon International Ltd. vs Budhraja Mining And Constructions Ltd. on 24 September, 2007
10...... One of the main purposes for the re- enactment of the
arbitration law was to allow adjudication of disputes by
arbitration expeditiously. Seen in this light, it will be found
that the period of 30 days provided for preferring the
application under Section 33 of the Act is not extendable
inasmuch as unless the application is so preferred, there is
O.M.P. (COMM) 191/2016 Page 4
no Arbitrator thereafter. We find that the same conclusion
has been reached in UOI vs. Saboo Minerals Pvt. Ltd., 106
(2003) DLT 92 and in Ircon International Ltd. vs. Budhraja
Mining & Constructions Ltd. MANU/DE/8647/2007 by
Single Judges of this Court.
Section 32 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
1