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
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
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
Disposed
Hearing
Hearing
Hearing
Hearing
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 06-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 24-02-2026 | Hearing |
| 07-02-2026 | Hearing |
| 17-01-2026 | Hearing |
| 17-12-2025 | Hearing |
Final Orders / Judgements
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
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
Explore other courts