AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Arindam Sinha, J
Mr. Behura, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and submits, interference is required with judgment dated 21st October, 2019 passed by the District Judge in rejecting his client’s application for extension of mandate. He refers to certified copy of resolution taken by his client (claimant) on 10th January, 2017. He points out, it was further resolved that both Mr. Tathagat Mohanty and Mr. Upagupt Mohanty are signatories to the contract documents signed on behalf of the joint venture and on behalf of the company. Both the persons were duly authorized by the company to act as its authorized signatories, with authority to sign singularly.
On query from Court he refers to procedural order no.1 dated 25th May, 2017 passed in the reference, wherein, inter alia, Mr. Tathagata Mohanty’s appearance was recorded, as power of attorney holder of petitioner-claimant. He prays for leave to file additional affidavit, to disclose the application made under section 29A, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. He submits, the application was signed by Mr. Upagupt Mohanty acting as signatory for petitioner-claimant. His further submission is, order dated 3rd December, 2018 in I.A. no.14690 of 2018 made in WP(C) no.17308 of 2018 (OPTCL v. Arbitral Tribunal) has no connection with proceeding of present reference.
Petitioner may file additional affidavit upon advance copy served. The affidavit should be confined to relevant disclosures. It will be accepted on adjourned date.
By consent list on 15th July, 2022.
……………………