AMITAVA LALA
DAYNAND PROSAD SINHA – Appellant
Versus
HINDUSTAN STEEL WORKS CONSTRUCTION LIMITED – Respondent
( 1 ) THIS is an application under S. 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
( 2 ) BY making this application, the petitioner wanted intervention of this Court to get an appointment of the Arbitrator.
( 3 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner, a letter was written by the petitioner to the respondent on 20th August, 1998 being Annexure 'c' to the petition asking the respondent to appoint an Arbitrator within 30 days failing which the appropriate jurisdiction of the Competent Court of law will be invoked.
( 4 ) NOW, the question arose before this Court, which should be Competent Court of law ?
( 5 ) THE respondent company has its office at 1, Shakespeare Sarani, Calcutta - 700 071, within the jurisdiction of this Court. No leave under clause 12 of the letters patent was sought for by the petitioner possibly on the basis of the fact that the sole respondent carrying on business within the jurisdiction of this Court. However, cause title does not say as to whether the respondent is carrying out business within the jurisdiction or not but simply describe that the respondent company has its office within the jurisdiction. Therefore, a relevant question arose before
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.