National Highways Authority Of India,Through Project Director vs Shakuntala Keshav Gawande(Other — 467/2024

Case under Arbitration and Conciliation Act Section 34(3). Disposed: Contested--DECIDED on 06th March 2026.

Civil M.A.

CNR: MHAK010029562024

Case disposed

e-Filing Number

23-08-2024

Filing Number

1649/2024

Filing Date

31-08-2024

Registration No

467/2024

Registration Date

31-08-2024

Court

District and Session Court , Akola

Judge

4-District Judge III Akola

Decision Date

06th March 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DECIDED

Acts & Sections

Arbitration and Conciliation Act Section 34(3)

Petitioner(s)

National Highways Authority Of India,Through Project Director

Adv. Gohad S

Respondent(s)

Shakuntala Keshav Gawande(Other

Competent Authority Of Land Acquisition And Sub Divisional Officer, Murtizapur

The Additional Collector And Arbitrator,

Hearing History

Judge: 4-District Judge III Akola

06-03-2026

Disposed

24-02-2026

Hearing

07-02-2026

Hearing

17-01-2026

Hearing

17-12-2025

Hearing

Final Orders / Judgements

06-03-2026
Order on Exhibit

The District Judge rejected National Highways' application seeking condonation of delay in filing to set aside an arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996. The court found that National Highways understated the actual delay (2 months 13 days instead of claimed 28 days) and provided insufficient reasons, with no documentary evidence supporting claims about obtaining documents and sanctions. The court emphasized that speedy dispute resolution is the Arbitration Act's core objective and public authorities cannot be given special treatment for dilatory conduct. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Interim Orders

casestatus.in Summary

The District Judge rejected National Highways' application seeking condonation of delay in filing to set aside an arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996. The court found that National Highways understated the actual delay (2 months 13 days instead of claimed 28 days) and provided insufficient reasons, with no documentary evidence supporting claims about obtaining documents and sanctions. The court emphasized that speedy dispute resolution is the Arbitration Act's core objective and public authorities cannot be given special treatment for dilatory conduct. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

More from this court

District and Session Court , Akola All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case