OP(C) No. 2522 of 2011 · Kerala High Court
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
No further directions are called for and the originalpetition is disposed of as above
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 22. The court below has correctly held that the partiesare governed by the Arbitration Act, 1940 in the instant case andthat the suit has to be proceeded in accordance therewith. Thefurther finding that the application by the respondent/plaintiff topass a decree in accordance with the…
- Para 44. The petitioner is entitled to call in aid the provisionsof Section 14 of the Limitation Act. The fact that the petitioner O.P.(C) NO.2522 OF 20112was bonafidely pursuing the proceedings before the court of the District Judge of Ernakulam can be urged. The petitioner haderroneously…
Judgment
V.CHITAMBARESH, J.-------------------------------O.P.(C) No. 2522 of 2011-------------------------------Dated this the 8th day of October, 2012J U D G M E N TI heard Mrs. Molly Jacob, Advocate on behalf of thepetitioner and Mr.Paul Kuriakose, Advocate on behalf of therespondent.
The court below has correctly held that the partiesare governed by the Arbitration Act, 1940 in the instant case andthat the suit has to be proceeded in accordance therewith. Thefurther finding that the application by the respondent/plaintiff topass a decree in accordance with the award is maintainablecannot also be found fault with.
The petitioner is at liberty to move an appropriateapplication under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act to set asideaside the award. Such application has to be filed before the courtof the Subordinate Judge which appointed the Arbitrator. This isbecause Ext.P1 award has been passed in accordance with Section 14 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 only.
Operative part
The petitioner is entitled to call in aid the provisionsof Section 14 of the Limitation Act. The fact that the petitioner O.P.(C) NO.2522 OF 20112was bonafidely pursuing the proceedings before the court of the District Judge of Ernakulam can be urged. The petitioner haderroneously invoked the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 which does not apply. The court belowshall deal with the application for condonation of delay inseeking to set aside the award appropriately. No further directions are called for and the originalpetition is disposed of as above. V.CHITAMBARESH,Judge. nj.
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: No further directions are called for and the originalpetition is disposed of as above
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Arbitration Act, 1940 — s. 14; Limitation Act, 1963 — s. 14; Arbitration andConciliation Act, 1996.
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.