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

1990 Supreme(SC) 130

K.JAYACHANDRA REDDY, R.M.SAHAI
State of A. P. – Appellant
Versus
I. DEVENDER REDDY – Respondent


ORDER

1. Under Section 8(2) of the Arbitration Act, the Subordinate Judge, Peddapalli at the instance of the respondent appointed an arbitrator to give an in respect of the dispute relating to the execution of a work contract.

The appeal against the said order has been dismissed by the High Court in limine. The State has now appealed to this Court challenging the order appointing the arbitrator.

2. Mr Nambiar, learned counsel for the State has relied upon two government notifications dated 24-10-1983 and 1-6-1987 in support of his contention that the dispute cannot be decided by the arbitrator but must be determined by a civil court in a properly constituted suit. We have perused the terms of the notifications. The first notification dated 24-10-1983 is not precise in terms as to the forum of adjudication of claims above Rs 50,000 b but the second notification dated 1-6-1987 expressly provides that all claims above Rs 50,000 shall be decided by the civil court of competent jurisdiction by way of a regular suit. If first notification was clear enough as to the jurisdiction of the civil court to decide all claims above Rs 50,000, it was unnecessary to issue the second notification su


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