✦ Bombay High Court · 31 Aug 2005

M/S KAI-TECH CONSTRUCTIONS v. THE CHIEF ENGINEER,KONKAN RAILWAY

Case at a glance

Outcome

Dismissed

The Writ Petition is dismissed in limine

Provisions considered

Key paragraphs

  • Para 19961996. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner hardly merits acceptance. A persual of the application dated 16th February, 2004 leaves no manner of doubt that by the said application, the petitioner sought review of the Award dated 15th January, 2004. The application…

Judgment

Mr. V. R.Tamba with Mr. P. K. Shahapurkar, advocates for the petitioner. Coram:- R. M. LODHA, J. Date:- 31st August, 2005 P.C. Heard Mr. V. R. Tamba, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the communication dated 13th April, 2004, whereby the petitioner was communicated that the application dated 16th February, 2004 has been rejected. The learned counsel for the petitioner urged before me that the Arbitral Tribunal was not right in holding that by application dated 16th February, 2004, the petitioner sought review of the Award dated 15th January, 2004. According to the learned counsel the application dated 16th February, 2004 was under Section 33(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,

#1996. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner hardly merits acceptance. A persual of the application dated 16th February, 2004 leaves no manner of doubt that by the said application, the petitioner sought review of the Award dated 15th January, 2004. The application made by the petitioner does not fall under Section 33(4)of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, as contended. The Writ Petition does not deserve to be admitted. The Writ Petition is dismissed in limine. R. M. LODHA, J.

Questions this judgment answers

What did the Court decide in this case?

The Court recorded the following disposition: The Writ Petition is dismissed in limine

Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — s. 33(4).

Which court decided this case, and when?

Bombay High Court, on 31 Aug 2005. The bench was R M LODHA.

Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case

No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.

This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Bombay High Court or eCourts case status (search case no. Writ Petition No. 535 of 2004). ← Search more judgments