From the aforesaid provision it can be said that the provision becomes applicable when the decision on a particular claim is possible through arbitration. In the present matter, the decision on the case of waiver was not possible through arbitration. Thus the application filed by VSSSK was not within the scope of provision of section 33(4) of the Act and as such application was not tenable, the order made on the application cannot be used by VSSSK for contending that the period of limitation started when this application was rejected by the learned sole Arbitrator. This Court has no hesitation to hold that the time started to run for filing proceeding under section 34 of the Act when the learned sole Arbitrator delivered the award i.e. from 5-8-2010 and not from 15-12-2010 when the so called application under section 33 came to be rejected by the learned sole Arbitrator. This discussion is sufficient to hold that the proceedings filed by VSSSK under section 34 of the Act were not filed within the prescribed period of limitation. So the Point Nos. 1 and 2 are answered against VSSSK.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AURANGABAD BENCH)
Arbitration Appeal No. 7 of 2013, Civil Application No. 4637 of 2013,
Decided On: 17.04.2017
Vitthalrao Shinde Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. Vs.
Gangapur Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
T.V. Nalawade, J.
Citation:2017(5) MHLJ 309.
Read full judgment here :Click here
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AURANGABAD BENCH)
Arbitration Appeal No. 7 of 2013, Civil Application No. 4637 of 2013,
Decided On: 17.04.2017
Vitthalrao Shinde Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. Vs.
Gangapur Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
T.V. Nalawade, J.
Citation:2017(5) MHLJ 309.
Read full judgment here :Click here
No comments:
Post a Comment