WALTER BAU AG, LEGAL SUCCESSOR, OF THE ORIGINAL CONTRACTOR, DYCKERHOFF & WIDMANN A. G. vs MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2015 Supreme(SC) 51

RANJAN GOGOI
WALTER BAU AG, LEGAL SUCCESSOR, OF THE ORIGINAL CONTRACTOR, DYCKERHOFF & WIDMANN A. G. – Appellant
Versus
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI – Respondent

JUDGMENT

1. A works contract No.3AAA dated 20th December, 2000 was executed by and between the petitioner and the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (respondent No.1 herein) for execution of city tunnel rehabilitation works for the purposes of transporting the city's sewage. Disputes and differences having arisen between the parties under the said contract, the petitioner invoked the arbitration clause contained therein and by letter, dated 24th February, 2014, nominated one Shri R.G. Kulkarni as its Arbitrator. By the said communication, the petitioner called upon the respondent No.1 to appoint its Arbitrator within 30 days of the receipt of the aforesaid letter/notice.

2. The arbitration clause in the agreement between the parties would require to be specifically noticed and, therefore, is being extracted herein below:

“Modified Sub-Clause 67.3

Arbitration

Sub-clause 67.3 is modified to read as follows:

Any dispute, in respect of which the Recommendation(s), if any, of the Board has not become final and binding pursuant to Sub-clause 67.1, shall be finally s

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2015 Supreme(SC) 51

RANJAN GOGOIWALTER BAU AG, LEGAL SUCCESSOR, OF THE ORIGINAL CONTRACTOR, DYCKERHOFF & WIDMANN A. G. – AppellantVersusMUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI – Respondent

Cases Referred (3)

RANJAN GOGOI
WALTER BAU AG, LEGAL SUCCESSOR, OF THE ORIGINAL CONTRACTOR, DYCKERHOFF & WIDMANN A. G. – Appellant
Versus
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI – Respondent