Secretary And Others vs Gopal Prasad Nawetiya — 7/2023
Case under Arbitration Act Section 34. Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED on 16th March 2026.
Miscellaneous
CNR: BRKH010036502023
Filing Number
72/2023
Filing Date
11-04-2023
Registration No
7/2023
Registration Date
11-04-2023
Court
DJ Div. Khagaria
Judge
1-Principal District and Sessions Judge
Decision Date
16th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ALLOWED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Secretary And Others
Adv. Manwendra Kumar
Respondent(s)
Gopal Prasad Nawetiya
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Principal District and Sessions Judge
Disposed
ORDER
ARGUMENTS
ARGUMENTS
ARGUMENTS
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 16-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 06-01-2026 | ORDER |
| 18-12-2025 | ARGUMENTS |
| 16-12-2025 | ARGUMENTS |
| 09-12-2025 | ARGUMENTS |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: Civil Misc. Case No. 03 of 2023 The Principal District Judge at Khagaria set aside a 2017 arbitral award in favor of contractor Gopal Prasad Nawetiya for Rs. 5,14,485/- on multiple grounds. The court found the contractor's claim was barred by the three-year limitation period (expired 14.03.1994), as he accepted on 15.03.1991 that no amount was due, yet raised claims only in 2005. Additionally, the arbitrator violated statutory procedures under the Arbitration & Conciliation Act by adjudicating claims without statements of claim and defence (Section 23), and provided cryptic reasoning (Section 31). The award was also contrary to public policy as it involved a time-barred claim, making it non-enforceable. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: Civil Misc. Case No. 03 of 2023 The Principal District Judge at Khagaria set aside a 2017 arbitral award in favor of contractor Gopal Prasad Nawetiya for Rs. 5,14,485/- on multiple grounds. The court found the contractor's claim was barred by the three-year limitation period (expired 14.03.1994), as he accepted on 15.03.1991 that no amount was due, yet raised claims only in 2005. Additionally, the arbitrator violated statutory procedures under the Arbitration & Conciliation Act by adjudicating claims without statements of claim and defence (Section 23), and provided cryptic reasoning (Section 31). The award was also contrary to public policy as it involved a time-barred claim, making it non-enforceable. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts