Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 9413 (BOM)

Sushma Shivkumar Daga v. Kumud Madhurkumar Bajaj

CARBP/1040/2026 · 2026-09-18

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1/2 P-1-CARBP-1040-2026.DOC IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION IN ITS COMMERCIAL DIVISION COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 1040 OF 2026 Sushma Shivkumar Daga & Anr. ...Petitioners Versus Kumud Madhurkumar Bajaj & Anr. ...Respondents _______ Mr. Kiran Mohite a/w Ms. Deepika Mule for the Petitioners. Ms. Keya Raval i/b Dhru & Co. for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. _______ CORAM : ARIF S. DOCTOR, J. DATE : 18 th SEPTEMBER, 2026 P.C. 1. Mentioned. Not on Board. Taken on Board. 2. This is the Petition filed under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and seeks an extension of the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal to complete the arbitration proceedings and pass an arbitral award. 3. There is no objection to the time being extended. 4. I am informed that the arbitration proceedings are at the stage of final arguments. In my view, the substantive interest of justice would best be served if the time is extended. I am now extending the time for a period of six months. 5. The Tribunal shall endeavour to complete the arbitration proceedings within a period of six months, for which purpose both parties are directed to cooperate. Areeb MOHAMMAD AREEB MOHD AKBAR Digitally signed by MOHAMMAD AREEB MOHD AKBAR Date: 2026.09.18 15:49:37 +0530 2/2 P-1-CARBP-1040-2026.DOC 6. Accordingly, the Petition is allowed. 7. Time is extended for a period of six months from the date on which a copy of this order is uploaded. [ARIF S. DOCTOR, J.] Areeb