Back
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
RAVI NATH TILHARI, V. SRINIVAS, JJ
Brothers Engineering And Erectors Ltd., Rep by Managing Director, P. Karunakaran Vasu – Appellant
Versus
Zorin Infrastructure, LLP Kakinada, Rep. by its Managing Director, Boddu Ajay, S/o. Sathi Raju Kakinada – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(Ravi Nath Tilhari, J.)
Heard Sri Varun Byreddy and Sri Sai Charan Chodisetty, learned counsels for the appellants and Ms. Lanka Sai Prasanthi, learned counsel for the respondent.
2. This appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short ‘the Arbitration Act’) has been filed by the appellants, the defendants Nos.1 to 3 in O.S.No.234 of 2015 in the Court of the VII Additional District Judge, Vijayawada. The respondent is the plaintiff. In the suit, the appellants filed I.A.No.21 of 2016 under Section 8 (1) of the Arbitration Act to refer the parties to arbitration. The said I.A. was rejected by Order dated27.08.2024. Challenging the said Order, this appeal has been filed.
Facts:
3. The respondent filed the suit for recovery of money with subsequent interest. The transaction between the plaintiff and the defendants No.1 and 2 in O.S.No.234 of 201 was for execution of contract work for mechanical erection of three units of Turbine, Generator, Condenser, High Pressure Piping and connected works at KSK Mahanandi Power Plant, Akaltara, Jangir, Champa District, Chhattisgarh by the plaintiff. The agreement dated 02.08.2011 was4 CMA No. 623 of 2024 entere
The court held that disputes regarding settled amounts are not arbitrable under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, unless specifically covered by the arbitration agreement.
The court established that a party does not forfeit its right to apply for arbitration under Section 8 even after the expiration of the time to file a written statement, provided there are intervenin....
A party's previous unrelated legal action does not waive their right to invoke arbitration if the subsequent application under Section 8 is filed before their first substantive statement in a related....
The court ruled that a vague arbitration clause does not necessitate arbitration, enabling the plaintiff to attach defendants' assets due to the admission of debt and the defendants' failure to compl....
The court held that the validity of claims and the arbitrability of related disputes must be referred to arbitration, rejecting the respondent's claims of non-compliance with contractual protocols li....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that all disputes capable of resolution by arbitration should be referred to the Arbitral Tribunal, and the scope of examination by the Court exerc....
Rejection of plaint – When a statute prescribes to do certain thing in a certain manner, the thing has to be done in same manner or not at all – All other modes are expressly forbidden.
The claims were notified within the stipulated period and submitted along with the final bill in accordance with Clause 6.6.3.0 of the GCC, making the disputes arbitrable under Clause 9.1.0.0.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
