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

2000 Supreme(Cal) 256

AMITAVA LALA
DAYNAND PROSAD SINHA – Appellant
Versus
HINDUSTAN STEEL WORKS CONSTRUCTION LIMITED – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Hiranmoy Dutt, KUMKUM DAS, SHANTI BANERJI

AMITAVA LALA, J.

( 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
















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