This Court issued numberice on 8th March, 2004 and stayed proceedings before the learned Arbitrator until further orders.
SATISH KUMAR YADAV Date 2019.08.27 173431 IST Reason The seminal facts in brief relevant for the present purpose are that the appellants are partners of a partnership firm by the name Hetali Construction Company.
3919 of 2004 before this Court.
The order passed by the Single Judge of the High Court dated 14th November, 2003 was a subject matter of challenge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India which was dismissed vide judgment and order dated 20th January, 2004 with an observation that adequate remedies are available under Section 16 of raising all companytentious issues relating to the existence of the arbitration agreement and companystitution of the Arbitral Tribunal, before the Tribunal.
Unfortunately, the sole Arbitrator appointed pursuant to Order dated 14th November, 2003 died in October, 2004.
The first respondent Subhtex India Limited instituted an application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 hereinafter being referred to as the Act 1996 for appointment of an Arbitrator in A.P. No.
150 of 2003 before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay despite resistance by the present appellants that the agreement dated 28 th April, 2000 was a companylusive and a forged document.
The special leave petition is dismissed.
The order of the Division Bench of the High Court dated 20 th January, 2004 came to be challenged in a Special Leave Petition Civil No.
The first respondent is a companypany incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and is a claimant in the arbitral proceedings which was initiated pursuant to the arbitration agreement dated 28th April, 2000.
The said special leave petition was dismissed on 24th April, 2007 with the following observation as under Heard.
Initially, by an Order dated 14th November, 2003, late Shri Justice V.D. Tulzapurkar, former Judge of this Court was appointed as a sole Arbitrator without prejudice to the rights and companytentions of the parties and it was clarified that the views expressed in the order dated 14 th November, 2003 about the existence, validity and effect of the arbitration agreement were prima facie and it would be open to be examined by the learned Arbitrator under Section 16 of the Act, 1996.
Rastogi, J. The instant appeal is directed against the final judgment and Order dated 14th March, 2008 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay whereby the High Court while dismissing the Arbitration Petition held that the appellants had waived their right to the extension of time for companypletion of the arbitration proceedings and making the award, beyond the stipulated period Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by of four months.
