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

2012 Supreme(SC) 217

R.M.LODHA, H.L.GOKHALE
H. P. Housing & Urban Devt. Auth. – Appellant
Versus
Ranjit Singh Rana – Respondent


JUDGMENT

R.M. Lodha, J.

Leave granted.

2. Pursuant to the agreement between the parties being agreement No. 11 of 1989-90 concerning construction of residential complex at Shimla, certain disputes arose. As per the terms of the contract, the Arbitrator was appointed to adjudicate the claims of the respondent and counter-claims of the appellants. On August 12, 1998, the Arbitrator passed the award. Aggrieved thereby, the appellants filed objections under Section 34(3) of the Arbitrator and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short “the Act”). The objections were accepted by the High Court to the extent that the reasons were not given by the Arbitrator and, accordingly, the matter was sent back to the Arbitrator for giving reasons in support of the award.

3. After remand, the Arbitrator considered the matter and passed the award on February 14, 2001. The appellants filed objections against the award dated February 14, 2001. They also deposited the entire amount due under the award before the High Court on May 24, 2001. The objections filed by the appellants were ultimately rejected by the single Judge of the High Court on February 26, 2008. Against this order, intra-court appeal is said to

















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