✦ Punjab & Haryana High Court · 01 Dec 2009

M/s Rani Finance and Investment Company v. Kanta Chandok & Anr.

HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. FAO No. 372 of 2008RAJESH BINDAL

Case at a glance

Decided
01 Dec 2009
Bench
RAJESH BINDAL

Outcome

Dismissed

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed

Judgment

Operative part

CORAM : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present:- Mr. Ravindra Jain, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Parveen Kumar, Advocate for the respondents. RAJESH BINDAL J. C.M. No. 2174-CII of 2008 For the reasons stated in the application, delay of 340 days in re- filing the appeal is condoned. C.M. stands disposed of. FAO No. 372 of 2008(O&M) The challenge in the present appeal is to the judgment of learned Court below whereby the objections filed by the appellant to the award of the arbitrator were dismissed. The only issue raised by the appellant while filing the objections was that the award having been passed by the Arbitrator after four months of the reference of dispute be declared void as learned Counsel for the appellant could not refer to any provision of law or the judgment in support of his plea. The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 governs proceedings in hand. Even before this Court learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to point out as to under what provision of law an award has to be declared void in case the same is not pronounced by the Arbitrator within four months of the reference of dispute. Considering the aforesaid fact I do not find any reason to interfere in the judgment of learned Court below as there is no merit in the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. The application for condonation of delay is also dismissed.

1.12.2009 Reema (RAJESH BINDAL) JUDGE

Questions this judgment answers

What did the Court decide in this case?

The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed

Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Which court decided this case, and when?

Punjab & Haryana High Court, on 01 Dec 2009. The bench was RAJESH BINDAL.

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 Punjab & Haryana High Court or eCourts case status (search case no. HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. FAO No. 372 of 2008). ← Search more judgments