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

2003 Supreme(SC) 572

BRIJESH KUMAR
ANGANG GROUP INTNL. TRADE CORPORATION – Appellant
Versus
PIPAVAV RAILWAY CORPORATION LTD. – Respondent


Judgment

BRIJESH KUMAR, J.

( 1 ) THIS petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short "the Act") has come up before me on being designated for appointing an arbitrator, by the Honble the Chief Justice of India.

( 2 ) LEARNED Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent raised an objection that there is no concluded contract between the parties, hence no arbitration agreement as well. It is also emphasised that no agreement has been executed by the parties. That being the position, there is no occasion for the petitioner to move the petition for appointment of an arbitrator. It has also been indicated that the letter of intent (LOI) as issued, was cancelled by the respondent by means of a letter dated 4-6-2002, since the bank guarantee furnished was a conditional bank guarantee and not unconditional as per stipulation. It is contended that though the arbitrator is competent to decide any dispute regarding existence or validity of the agreement but prima facie there must be some agreement on the basis of which arbitration clause may be invoked. In absence of any such prima facie material or evidence of an agreement, the provisions of Section 1






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