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

2004 Supreme(SC) 1385

G. P. MATHUR, P. P. NAOLEKAR
Dharma Prathishthanam – Appellant
Versus
Madhok Construction Pvt. LTD. – Respondent


JUDGMENT

R.C. Lahoti, CJI.-Leave granted.

2. The appellant-Dharma Prathishthanam is a charitable institution. The respondent is a builder engaged in construction activity. In the year 1985, the appellant proposed to have a building constructed for which purpose it entered into a works contract with the respondent for the construction as per the drawings and specifications given by the appellant. We are not concerned with the correctness or otherwise of the allegations and counter allegations made by the parties which relate to the question who committed breach of the agreement. Suffice it for our purpose to say that disputes arose between the parties. Clause 35 of the agreement which is the arbitration clause reads as under:-

"Settlement of disputes shall be through arbitration as per the Indian Arbitration Act."

3. Obviously and admittedly the reference was to the Arbitration Act, 1940.

4. On 12th June, 1989 the respondent appointed one Shri Swami Dayal as the Sole Arbitrator. It appears that the respondent gave a notice to the appellant of such appointment having been made by the respondent but the appellant failed to respond. The respondent made a reference of disputes to the Arbitra


































































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