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

1996 Supreme(AP) 737

P.VENKATRAMA REDDY, D.H.NASIR
Superintending Engineer, Irrigation department, Nizamabad – Appellant
Versus
Progressive Engineering Co. , Hyderabad – Respondent


P. VENKATARAMA REDDI, J.

( 1 ) THIS C. M. A. and C. R. P. arise out of a common judgment delivered by the second Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The C. M. A. is filed under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act against the order in O. P. No. 4 of 1986. The said O. P, was filed by the State of Andhra Pradesh represented by superintending Engineer, Irrigation Circle-III, Nizamabad under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act objecting to the Award passed and praying the court to set aside the award dated 27-9-1985.

( 2 ) THE C. R. P. arises out of the judgment and decree in O. S. No. 1242 of 1985. The suit was filed by the respondent herein under Sections 14 and 17 of the arbitration Act praying the Court to direct the Arbitrators (defendants 3 to 5) to file their award into Court and to make the award the rule of the Court and also to award interest at 18% per annum from the date of the decree.

( 3 ) THE O. P. was dismissed by the learned second Additional Judge, City civil Court and the suit was decreed passing a decree in terms of the award and granting interest @ 12% per annum from the date of the decree till the date of realisation.

( 4 ) THE relevant facts are the









































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