NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY IT S PROJECT DIRECTOR vs ANIL D. SONJE AND ANOTHER — ARBA/9/2019

Case under Arbitration and Concilation Act 1996. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 17th April 2026.

CNR: HCBM030293642019

CASE DISPOSED

Next Hearing

23rd August 2019

Filing Number

ARBA/22494/2019

Filing Date

22-07-2019

Registration No

ARBA/9/2019

Registration Date

22-08-2019

Judge

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ARUN R. PEDNEKER

Coram

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ARUN R. PEDNEKER

Bench Type

Single

Category

ARBITRATION ( 4 )

Judicial Branch

Civil

Decision Date

17th April 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISMISSED

Acts & Sections

Arbitration and Concilation Act 1996

Petitioner(s)

NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY IT S PROJECT DIRECTOR

Adv. Manorkar Deepak S,Kale Ajeet B.,Kale Ajeet B., ,Kale Ajeet B.

Respondent(s)

ANIL D. SONJE AND ANOTHER

Adv. Adv. A. B. Kale V. P filed for R/1 and 2,Kale Ajeet B.,.,Kale Ajeet B. 1123

Hearing History

Judge: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ARUN R. PEDNEKER

27-11-2019

DUE ADMISSION [ AFTER NOTICE ]

09-10-2019

FOR ADMISSION - FRESH [CIVIL SIDE MATTERS]

14-01-2020

DUE ADMISSION -CIVIL

23-08-2019

PETITIONS FOR ADMISSION - FRESH CIVIL SIDE MATTERS

06-12-2022

Orders

17-04-2026
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ARUN R. PEDNEKER

The High Court of Bombay (Aurangabad Bench) dismissed NHAI's arbitration appeals against Anil D. Sonje and Kailasbai Babulal Oza because the Section 34 applications challenging the arbitral awards were filed 26 days beyond the mandatory 90+30 day limitation period. The court held it lacks power to condone delay beyond three months plus 30 days under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

The High Court of Bombay (Aurangabad Bench) dismissed NHAI's arbitration appeals against Anil D. Sonje and Kailasbai Babulal Oza because the Section 34 applications challenging the arbitral awards were filed 26 days beyond the mandatory 90+30 day limitation period. The court held it lacks power to condone delay beyond three months plus 30 days under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

Explore other courts

Search Another Case