M/S VAISHALI FOODS THR PARTNERS AND 3 ORS v. M/S CHANDELKAR MARKETING A PARTNERSHIP FIRM
Case at a glance
Outcome
Withdrawn
Accordingly, the application shall stand disposed of as withdrawnwith leave to the Applicants to file an application under Section 29Aof the Act, for further extension to the mandate of the Arbitrationbefore the District Court, North Goa, within two weeks
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. Considering that the application is otherwise filed in this Court ontime and at that point of time, the Judgment of this Court in SheelaChowgule V/s Jagdeep Chowgule (passed in Writ Petition No.88/2024 on 15.05.2024) had held that the High Court to be theappropriate Court…
- Para 44. Accordingly, the application shall stand disposed of as withdrawnwith leave to the Applicants to file an application under Section 29Aof the Act, for further extension to the mandate of the Arbitrationbefore the District Court, North Goa, within two weeks. The DistrictCourt shall consider the…
Judgment
MCA 53 of 2026 SonamIN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOAMISC.CIVIL APPLICATION NO.53 OF 2026M/S VAISHALI FOODS THR PARTNERS AND 3 ORS ... APPLICANTS VersusM/S CHANDELKAR MARKETING A PARTNERSHIP FIRM REP BY PARTNERS AND 3 ORS ... RESPONDENTSMr. S. M. Singbal, Advocate for the Applicants. Mr. P. Kholkar, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 4.CORAM:-VALMIKI MENEZES, J.DATED :-10th February, 2026P.C.:
In view of the Judgment now rendered by the Hon'ble SupremeCourt in Jagdeep Chowgule V/s Sheela Chowgule and ors, reported in2026 SCC OnLine SC 124, the present application under Section 29Awould not be maintainable before this Court. The appropriate Court, asheld in the said Judgment, where an application under Section 29A ofthe Arbitration Act could have been filed, is before the District Court, North Goa.
At this stage, the learned Advocate appearing for the Applicantssubmits that considering the time period specified by Sub Section 29APage 1 of 210th February, 2026 MCA 53 of 20264 and 5 of the Act, the application under Section 29A had beenotherwise filed within time, i.e. by 08.02.2026. On instructions, heseeks leave to withdraw this application, with leave to file the samebefore the District Court, North Goa.
Considering that the application is otherwise filed in this Court ontime and at that point of time, the Judgment of this Court in SheelaChowgule V/s Jagdeep Chowgule (passed in Writ Petition No.88/2024 on 15.05.2024) had held that the High Court to be theappropriate Court in which such an application was required to befiled, it would now be appropriate that such leave as prayed for begranted.
Operative part
Accordingly, the application shall stand disposed of as withdrawnwith leave to the Applicants to file an application under Section 29Aof the Act, for further extension to the mandate of the Arbitrationbefore the District Court, North Goa, within two weeks. The DistrictCourt shall consider the application, and after hearing the parties, passan appropriate order. Leave granted under this order.5. Application for Appointment of Arbitrator No. 5/2023 standsdisposed of as withdrawn with leave as aforesaid.VALMIKI MENEZES, J.Page 2 of 210th February, 2026
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, the application shall stand disposed of as withdrawnwith leave to the Applicants to file an application under Section 29Aof the Act, for further extension to the mandate of the Arbitrationbefore the District Court, North Goa, within two weeks
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Aof the Act.
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.