KCS PVT. LTD. Vs. MECON LTD. JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. Ray, learned advocate, appears on behalf of petitioner and submits, his client has sought judicial review over order dtd. 9/5/2022 passed by the Distinct Judge, Sundargarh in Arbitration Petition no.04 of 2021, rejecting his client's application under sec. 29-A in Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for extension of the mandate.

(2.) He submits, only ground for rejection would appear from paragraph 7 in impugned order. It is that earlier, extension of time was obtained by application made to this Court. Consequential prayer is for extension of the mandate.

(3.) Sec. 42 clearly provides that where with respect to an arbitration agreement any application under part-I has been made to a Court, that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over the arbitral proceedings and of subsequent applications. As such, there can be no interference with impugned order.