PRANAB KUMAR CHATTOPADHYAY, KALIDAS MUKHERJEE
ARCH HI-RISE PVT. LTD. – Appellant
Versus
YATIN BHIMANI – Respondent
( 1 ) THIS appeal will be heard.
( 2 ) SINCE the real contesting party, namely the plaintiff, has already entered appearance, service of notice upon the other defendants/respondents stands dispensed with. Filing of Paper Books and all other formalities also stand dispensed with. Lower Court's records need not be called for.
( 3 ) BY consent of the contesting parties, appeal is treated as on day's list and taken up for hearing along with the connected application.
( 4 ) THE defendant No. 2 is aggrieved by the Order No. 2 dated 7th June, 2006 passed by the learned District Judge, Alipore in Title Suit No. 80 of 2006. On examination of the available records and the order passed by the learned district Judge of the Court below, it appears that the defendant No. 1 herein as the owner of the suit premises entered into a development agreement with the defendant No. 4 for construction of the multi-storied building in the suit premises on certain terms and conditions. The said agreement was, however, signed by the constituted attorney of the defendant No. 1. In the said agreement a specific arbitration clause has been mentioned which is set out he
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.