Dwarkadas Panchmatia v. Veekaylal Investment Company Pvt. Ltd.

6.IA.1132.2020.doc SHRIKANT SHRINIVAS MALANI

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION by SHRIKANT SHRINIVAS MALANI Date: 2022.12.12 18:51:57 +0530 INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1132 OF 2020 IN COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION PETITION (L) NO. 206 OF 2020 Dwarkadas Panchmatia ...Applicant/Petitioner

Versus

Veekaylal Investment Company Pvt. Ltd.

...Respondent

***  Ms. Divya Tyagi, Mr. Zeeshan Syed i/by M/s S. Jayakar & Partners, for Petitioner.

 Mr. Nikhil Jayakar i/by Rajeev R. Sharma, for Respondent. *** CORAM : MANISH PITALE, J DATE : 09TH DECEMBER, 2022.

P. C. :

1.

This is an Application for condonation of delay of 27 days in filing the accompanying petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

2.

Although the application states that, number of days of delay was 23 days, the learned Counsel for the Applicant/Petitioner fairly submits that the delay is of 27 days.

3.

Since the sole Respondent was served with papers, learned Counsel has appeared on behalf of the Respondent. 4.

The learned Counsel for the Applicant/Petitioner relied upon paragraph nos. 3 and 4 of the application to press the prayer for condonation of delay.

Shrikant

6.IA.1132.2020.doc 5.

The learned Counsel for the Respondent has opposed the prayer made in the present application.

6.

This Court has considered the contents of the application. It is stated that after the impugned award was passed, there was change in the advocates and also that the Applicant was required to visit his hometown for family emergency, leading to delay of 27 days. 7.

This Court is satisfied that sufficient cause is made out for condonation of delay in the facts and circumstances of the case. 8.

Accordingly, The application is allowed. The delay is condoned. The Registry is directed to register the petition as well as application for stay.

(MANISH PITALE, J.) Shrikant