STERLING GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. versus PLANTERS AIRWAYS PVT. LTD.

STERLING GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. versus PLANTERS AIRWAYS PVT. LTD.

In the facts and circumstances, having regard to the conduct of the respondent, the amount involved, and the reasons for delay, it would be undue hardship to the respondent if time was not extended for referring the dispute to arbitration. The High Court exercised its discretion properly under section 37(4) of the Arbitration Act, 1940.

Parties
Appellant: Sterling General Insurance Co. Ltd.; Respondent: Planters Airways Pvt. Ltd.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
19 December 1974
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal by Special Leave From Calcutta High Court Order Extending Time Under Arbitration Act S.37(4)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Extension of Time Under Arbitration Clause, Interpretation of 'undue Hardship' in Arbitration Act, Insurance Claim Procedure, Discretion of Court Under Section 37(4)
Arbitration Insurance Law Extension of Time Under Arbitration Clause Interpretation of 'undue Hardship' in Arbitration Act Insurance Claim Procedure Discretion of Court Under Section 37(4)

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sterling General Insurance Co. Ltd.

Appellant

Planters Airways Pvt. Ltd.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal by Special Leave From Calcutta High Court Order Extending Time Under Arbitration Act S.37(4)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court had power to extend time for referring a dispute to arbitration under section 37(4) of the Arbitration Act, 1940
  2. 2 Meaning of 'undue hardship' under section 37(4)
  3. 3 Whether the extension of time was properly exercised in the circumstances

Ratio Decidendi

In the facts and circumstances, having regard to the conduct of the respondent, the amount involved, and the reasons for delay, it would be undue hardship to the respondent if time was not extended for referring the dispute to arbitration. The High Court exercised its discretion properly under section 37(4) of the Arbitration Act, 1940.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Time for nominating an arbitrator by the appellant extended by one month from the date of judgment
  • Parties to suffer their own costs of the application in the High Court and the appeal in Supreme Court