Bombay High Court
Chintan Arvind ShahversusHARMYA DEVELOPERS FORMERLY KNOWN AS VALRAM CORPORATION
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The court granted the extension of time, finding that the petitioner satisfied the conditions of Section 29A.
Summary
The petitioner filed a petition under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking a further period of four months for the arbitral tribunal to complete the arbitration proceedings and issue its award. The petitioner’s counsel highlighted that the respondent had not appeared before the tribunal, rendering the proceedings ex‑parte, and that the petition had been duly served on the respondent. The court examined the record and found that the petitioner had shown sufficient cause for the requested extension. It held that the statutory requirements of Section 29A were satisfied. Consequently, the court ordered that the time for the tribunal to render its award be extended by four months, commencing from the date the order is uploaded.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to an extension of time under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
- Whether the petitioner has demonstrated sufficient cause for the extension despite the respondent’s non‑appearance.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- Arbitration
- Section 29A
- Extension of time
- Ex‑parte proceedings
- Arbitral award
Judgment
1/2 22 CARBP-882-2026.DOC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
Digitally COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 882 OF 2026
signed by
SAIRAJ
SAIRAJ SANJAY
SANJAY KARANDE
KARANDE Date:
2026.09.22
10:57:17
Chintan Arvind Shah … Petitioner
+0530
Vs.
Harmya Developers formerly known as Valram Corporation … Respondent
_______
Ms. Fatema Tankiwala i/b LJ Law for Petitioners/Claimants.
_______
CORAM : ARIF S. DOCTOR, J.
DATE : 21st September, 2026.
P.C.
1. The Petition is filed under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation
Act, 1996 by which the Applicant has sought further period of four months to
enable the Arbitral Tribunal to complete the arbitration proceedings and publish
the Arbitral Award.
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, at the outset, points
out that the Respondent has not been appearing before the Arbitral Tribunal and
the proceedings are therefore, ex-parte.
Sairaj
2/2 22 CARBP-882-2026.DOC
3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner also points out that the copy of the
Petition has been served upon the Respondent. Despite this, none has appeared
today.
4. Having heard learned counsel and having perused the record, all that now
remains is only passing of Arbitral Award. I am satisfied that the Petitioner has
shown sufficient cause. The requirements of Section 29A of Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996 have been made out and therefore, it would be in
substantive interest of justice to extend the time as prayed for.
5. Therefore, Arbitration Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a).
6. The extended time shall commence from the date on which the copy of
order is uploaded.
(ARIF S. DOCTOR, J.)
Sairaj
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.