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

2014 Supreme(SC) 559

J.CHELAMESWAR, A.K.SIKRI
Y. SLEEBACHEN ETC. – Appellant
Versus
SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER WRO/ PWD – Respondent


JUDGMENT :

A.K. SIKRI, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. By the common judgment dated 29.02.2012, the Madras High Court has decided three Civil Miscellaneous Appeals filed under Section 37 (1) (b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Those three appeals were filed by the respondents herein challenging the orders dated 28.04.2011 which were passed by the Principal District Judge, Tirunelveli, Tamil Nadu. The reasons for disposing of the appeals by one single order was the commonality of the parties as well as the issue involved in the said three appeals.

3. It so happened that the appellant, who is an Engineering Contractor, was awarded three contracts by the respondents herein particulars whereof are as under:

(i) For the rehabilitation and modernization of Gundar Reservoir system in Tirunelveli District the bids were called and in which the Petitioner became the successful bidder to execute the work for a contract price of Rs.80,14,605/- under registered Agreement dated 02.04.1998 within a period of 15 months to complete the contract work.

(ii) For the rehabilitation and modernization of Karuppanadhi Reservoir system in Tirunelveli District the bid



















































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