Shailesh Nagindas Shah v. Subhodh Manohar Pandit

1 4-CARBP-33-2024.doc by MULEY SHUBHAM PRAVINRAO Date:

2024.09.04 17:34:12 +0530 MULEY SHUBHAM PRAVINRAO

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION IN ITS COMMERCIAL DIVISION COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 33 OF 2024 Shailesh Nagindas Shah & Ors.

...Petitioners

Vs.

Subhodh Manohar Pandit & Anr.

...Respondents

----------------- Mr. Nishant Sasidharan a/w Gauri Mestha i/by LJ Law for the Petitioners. ----------------- CORAM : ARIF S. DOCTOR, J.

DATE : 4TH SEPTEMBER, 2024 P.C.:- 1.

This is a Petition filed under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for extension of the mandate of the Tribunal. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners places reliance upon an Affidavit of Service dated 3 rd September, 2024 to prove service of the present Petition upon the Respondents. It is noted that on previous occasion Respondent No.1 was in fact represented through an Advocate. Learned Counsel further submits that in the arbitration proceedings, the consent terms have been entered into between the Petitioners and Respondent No.2. He submits that the arbitration proceedings are at the stage of evidence and it is thus that an extension of time has been sought for.

Shubham 1/2

2 4-CARBP-33-2024.doc 2.

Having heard Learned Counsel and satisfying myself that Respondents though served have not appeared and also that there has been substantial progress in the arbitration proceedings, I deem it fit to allow the present application in terms of prayer clause (a) which reads thus:- "(a) that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to extend time for a further period of 6 months or such other period as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper to make an Award by the Arbitrator;"

3.

It is made clear that extended time shall commence from the date on which a copy of this order is uploaded.

4.

Petition is accordingly disposed of.

(ARIF S. DOCTOR, J.) Shubham 2/2