SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2000 Supreme(SC) 1204

J.JAGANNADHA RAO, DORAISWAMY RAJU
Kamal Pushp Enterprises – Appellant
Versus
D. R. Construction Company – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Raju, J.-The above appeal has been filed against the order of a learned Single Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court dated 13.10.95 in C.R. No. 561 of 1994, since reported in AIR 1996 M.P. 139, rejecting the Revision Petition filed by the appellant holding that the provisions of Section 69 of the Partnership Act do not stand in the way of an unregistered firm defending a proceedings against it and it precludes only the initiation of any proceeding by such a firm.

2. The Gas Authority of India Ltd., at Vijaypur, entered into a contract with the appellant to execute certain works and the appellant in its turn had entered into a separate contract with the respondent, indisputably an unregistered firm for carrying out the work, the execution of which was undertaken by the appellant under its contract with GAIL . Disputes arose between the appellant and the respondent. Thereupon, the appellant appears to have, invoking Section 8(2) of the Arbitration Act, 1940, served a notice on the respondent seeking for consent for the appointment of an Arbitrator, in terms of the arbitration clause, out of five proposed Arbitrators and the respondent gave its consent for the appointment of














Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top