TATA CONSTRUCTION vs THE KALYAN AGRICULTURE PRODUCE MARKETING COMMITTEE

Judgment text excerpt

901-WP-6132-2024.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6132 OF 2024 M/s. TAA Construction …Petitioner Versus The Kalyan Agriculture Produce Marketing …Respondent Committee Mr. Rajmani Jarma, a/w Kanishk Varma, i/b Namita Mestry, for the Petitioner. Mr. Kirit J. Hakani, a/w Rahul Hakani, Niyati Mankad, Pratishtha Shukla, for Respondent. CORAM : SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, J. DATE : February 12, 2026 Oral Judgement: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, heard finally. Context and Factual Background: 2. The challenge in this Petition is to an order dated June 27, 2006 (“Impugned Order”) passed by the Learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Kalyan, rejecting an Application filed by the Petitioner under Digitally ASHWINI signed by ASHWINI JANARDAN Section 14 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (“the 1940 Act”). JANARDAN VALLAKATI VALLAKATI Date: 2026.02.17 14:07:13 +0530 Page 1 of 10 February 12, 2026 Ashwini Vallakati 901-WP-6132-2024.doc 3. The foundational ground on which the Impugned Order has been passed is that the Application was hopelessly barred by limitation. 4. A brief overview of the facts would be appropriate. On September 16, 1997, a Learned Arbitral Tribunal proceeded to publish a unanimous award in favour of the Petitioner (“ Arbitral Award”). District Courts in Kalyan came to be established on September 1, 1996, i.e. well over a year before the Arbitral Award was passed. The Arbitral Award was filed under Section 14(2) of the 1940 Act for confirmation by the Court, before the District Court in Thane, on the premise that the agreement between the parties alluded to Courts in Thane having jurisdiction. 5. The Learned Judge in Thane was faced with an objection from the Respondent on the groun