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

2021 Supreme(Cal) 312

RAJESH BINDAL
Tantia Construction Limited – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Mr. Ishaan Saha, Mr. Raghunath Ghose.
For the Respondent: Ms. Aparna Banerjee.

ORDER :

1. The present application has been filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act (for short ‘the Act’) for appointment of an arbitrator for resolution of dispute between the parties. Arbitration clause in the agreement dated February 22, 2010, is not in dispute.

2. The learned Counsel for the applicants submitted that as during the currency of execution the project, there was dispute regarding price escalation the applicant prayed for appointment of an arbitrator by filing A.P. No. 92 of 2016 before this Court, which was disposed of on September 16, 2016 directing the appointing authority under to ensure constitution of Arbitral Tribunal. The Tribunal considered the claim. The contract was concluded on March 22, 2016. Final bill was prepared and submitted on December 16, 2016. As certain claims were rejected, fresh application was filed by the applicant for appointment of arbitrator on August 21, 2017. At this stage, the Court is only to examine as to whether there exists an arbitration clause in agreement. Merits of the case cannot be gone into. All o

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