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

2003 Supreme(SC) 676

SHIVARAJ V.PATIL, D.M.DHARMADHIKARI
Hythro Power Corporation LTD. – Appellant
Versus
Delhi Transco LTD. – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Dharmadhikari, J.-Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. Leave to appeal, as prayed for, is granted.

2. The appellant Hythro Power Corporation Limited has approached this Court aggrieved by rejection of its application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act" for short). The learned Judge of the Delhi High Court acting as designate or nominee of the Chief Justice, in exercise of his powers under Section 11 of the Act, by his order dated 7.12.2000 came to the conclusion that no agreement in writing having been executed by the parties with an arbitration clause, the prayer made by the appellant for seeking a reference of the disputes raised to arbitral Tribunal has to be rejected.

3. Aggrieved by refusal of the learned Judge of the Delhi High Court to make a reference to the arbitration, the appellant-Corporation filed a Writ Petition in the High Court of Delhi. The Division Bench of the High Court by the impugned order dated 29.8.2001 came to the same conclusion that there exist no written arbitration agreement and hence the dispute between the parties cannot be referred for arbitration under Section 11 of t

















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