We've just released a major update for LAWFYI to improve its capabilities. Kindly clear your browser cache to avoid any disruptions!

Learn More
Reached Daily Limit?

Explore a new way of legal research!

Click Here
Delhi High CourtIndian Cases

Aurum Jewellery Exports (P) Ltd. vs D.R. Khanna (Retd) And Ors. on 21 October 2003

1 minute read
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Delhi High Court
Aurum Jewellery Exports (P) Ltd. vs D.R. Khanna (Retd) And Ors. on 21 October, 2003
Author: Badar Durrez Ahmed
Bench: Badar Durrez Ahmed
JUDGMENT

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.

1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner in view of its grievances that its application under Section 33 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the said Act’) has not been considered or disposed of by the Arbitral Tribunal. The award was made by the Arbitral Tribunal on 04.08.2003. Within the time prescribed under Section 33 of the said Act, the petitioner moved an application on 02.09.2003 under Section 33(1) as well as Section 33(4) of the said Act. The petitioner submits that under Section 33 (4), which is essentially a request for making an additional arbitral award with regard to certain counter-claims, which have allegedly been omitted from the arbitral award, the Arbitral Tribunal is required to consider the request, and if found justified, to make an additional arbitral award within 60 days from the receipt of the request. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that 60 days is the outer limit for the making of the arbitral award. However, sub-Section 6 of Section 33 permits the Arbitral Tribunal to extend this period, if necessary, both in respect of interpretation as well as additional arbitral award.

2. It is to be seen that the petitioner’s application has not been disposed of by the Arbitral Tribunal. There is no order of rejection or nor is there any order allowing the request. The matter is still under consideration of the Arbitral Tribunal and till such time that the Arbitral Tribunal actually passes an order dismissing or allowing the application, the writ petition would be premature and not maintainable.

3. On this ground, the petition is dismissed with liberty to the parties to approach this Court after an order is passed by the Arbitral Tribunal on the application submitted by the petitioner on 02.09.2003.

1 minute read