Site

Law Courses

LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Medha Bhattacharyya (Advocate) 27 August 2019

Section 23(3) of the arbitration & conciliation act,1996

An order passed U/Sec.23(3) of the ArbitraArbitration & Conciliation Act,1996, whether such order appellable before High Court? If yes under what Section/Article/Provisions?

Learning

9 Replies

sm.calcutta (Advocate) 28 August 2019

sec 23(3) of arbitration act deals with filing of additional statement of claims! what order do you want to challenge? that the arbitrator did not allow you to take additional grounds?

Medha Bhattacharyya (Advocate) 28 August 2019

Yes,the Arbitrator rejected the amendment of counter claim on the ground of delay,but still the evidence is not started,only issues are framed.

Medha Bhattacharyya (Advocate) 28 August 2019

Yes,the Arbitrator rejected the amendment of counter claim on the ground of delay,but still the evidence is not started,only issues are framed.

Medha Bhattacharyya (Advocate) 28 August 2019

Yes,the Arbitrator rejected the amendment of counter claim on the ground of delay,but still the evidence is not started,only issues are framed.

Medha Bhattacharyya (Advocate) 28 August 2019

Yes,the Arbitrator rejected the amendment of counter claim on the ground of delay,but still the evidence is not started,only issues are framed.

Medha Bhattacharyya (Advocate) 28 August 2019

Yes,the Arbitrator rejected the amendment of counter claim on the ground of delay,but still the evidence is not started,only issues are framed.

Medha Bhattacharyya (Advocate) 28 August 2019

Yes,the Arbitrator rejected the amendment of counter claim on the ground of delay,but still the evidence is not started,only issues are framed.

Medha Bhattacharyya (Advocate) 28 August 2019

Yes,the Arbitrator rejected the amendment of counter claim on the ground of delay,but still the evidence is not started,only issues are framed.

sm.calcutta (Advocate) 28 August 2019

okay, but delay here probably does not signify the stage of proceeding, but rather the time agreed upon between the parties or determined by the arbitrator(section 23 subsection 1). so it is to be considered whether any time was agreed upon, or whether there was any agreement laying an embargo on amending the claims.

you need to find relevant precedents of the apex court to take this matter in appeal, becase under the statute itself, such order is not appealable. your counsel, if any, would be better suited to guide you and research on such relevant judgments.

Recent Topics

Related Threads

Stay updated with latest Posts!