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-Apr-2023
Registration No
7/2023
Registration Date
11-Apr-2023
Court
DJ Div. Khagaria
Judge
1-Principal District and Sessions Judge
Decision Date
16-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ALLOWED
Last updated 14-Jun-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Secretary And Others
Adv. Manwendra Kumar
Respondent(s)
-
1.Gopal Prasad Nawetiya
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
16-Mar-2026
AllowedView PDF
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.
-
16-Mar-2026
Disposed
Principal District and Sessions Judge
-
06-Jan-2026
Order
Principal District and Sessions Judge
-
18-Dec-2025
Arguments
Principal District and Sessions Judge
-
16-Dec-2025
Arguments
Principal District and Sessions Judge
-
09-Dec-2025
Arguments
Principal District and Sessions Judge
-
28-Nov-2025
Arguments
Principal District and Sessions Judge
-
27-Nov-2025
Arguments
Principal District and Sessions Judge
-
31-Oct-2025
Arguments
Principal District and Sessions Judge
-
16-Sep-2025
Arguments
Principal District and Sessions Judge
-
19-Aug-2025
Arguments
Principal District and Sessions Judge
-
22-Jul-2025
Arguments
Principal District and Sessions Judge
-
04-Jul-2025
Arguments
Principal District and Sessions Judge
-
17-Jun-2025
Arguments
Principal District and Sessions Judge
-
06-Jun-2025
Hearing
Principal District and Sessions Judge
-
19-Apr-2025
Hearing
Principal District and Sessions Judge
-
04-Apr-2025
Hearing
Principal District and Sessions Judge
-
24-Jan-2025
Hearing
Principal District and Sessions Judge
-
29-Nov-2024
Hearing
Principal District and Sessions Judge
-
20-Sep-2024
Hearing
Principal District and Sessions Judge
-
02-Aug-2024
Hearing
Principal District and Sessions Judge
-
30-May-2024
Awaiting for L. C. R.
Principal District and Sessions Judge
-
25-Apr-2024
Hearing
Principal District and Sessions Judge
-
05-Apr-2024
Hearing
Principal District and Sessions Judge
-
09-Feb-2024
Hearing
Principal District and Sessions Judge
-
12-Dec-2023
Hearing
Principal District and Sessions Judge
-
05-Dec-2023
Hearing
Principal District and Sessions Judge
-
23-Nov-2023
Hearing
Principal District and Sessions Judge
-
06-Oct-2023
Hearing
Principal District and Sessions Judge
-
15-Sep-2023
Hearing
Principal District and Sessions Judge
-
14-Jul-2023
Filing Of Requisites and App. Of Defendent.
Principal District and Sessions Judge
-
09-Jun-2023
Filing Of Requisites and App. Of Defendent.
Principal District and Sessions Judge
-
13-Apr-2023
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
11-Apr-2023
Case filed
Registration No. 7/2023
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.
Explore other courts