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

2003 Supreme(AP) 382

T.CH.SURYA RAO
R. Venkat Reddy, Hyderabad – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent


T. SURYA RAO, J.

( 1 ) ORDER :the applicant filed the present application under Section 11 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ( the Act for brevity) seeking appointment of an Arbitrator for resolution of the dispute between him and the first respondent.

( 2 ) THE applicant who is a railway contractor entered into an Agreement No. SK/ 4 dated 10. 4. 1989 for the work of supplying, stacking and loading into track 50 mm guage stone ballast between MLY-CHE stations. According to the applicant, although he made all necessary arrangements for completing the work within six months, due to delays and default on the part of the railways the work was prolonged. After the necessary correspondence between the parties, the applicant dumped into track the entire quantity of ballast. He informed the second respondent that about 95% of the agreement quantity of ballast was already supplied and dumped into track but payment for the dumped quantity was yet to be made and until the said payment was made, the balance quantity could not be collected further as per extent Rules. Therefore, extension was granted till 31. 3. 1996 for completing the balance work. The applicant, therefore, by















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