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

2005 Supreme(Bom) 1015

S.C.DHARMADHIKARI
Ion Exchange (India) Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
MSK Projects (India) Ltd. – Respondent


Judgment

( 1 ) HEARD Mr. Divekar for petitioners and Mr. Modi for respondents.

( 2 ) THIS is a petition under section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Petitioners submit that the suit instituted by the respondents is for recovery of a sum of rs. 12,97,529/- with interest @ 6% p. a. from the date of filing of the suit till payment of realisation. By this Arbitration Petition, the petitioners who are original defendants in summary Suit No. 2294 of 2003 pray that the dispute in the suit be referred to arbitration as per Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

( 3 ) IT is the case of the petitioners that the claim in the suit is based upon a letter dated 24th December, 1997. According to them, this was a Letter of Intent ('loi for short) for civil work on the terms and conditions more particularly set out therein. This LOI is relied upon by the respondents in the plaint. They have also referred to and relied upon the terms and conditions incorporated in the same.

( 4 ) MR. Divekar submits that as per the LOI and the terms and conditions annexed as annexures thereto, it is agreed between the parties that the civil work would be carried out in accordance therewith. Mr. Div









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