Back
PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA
Spml Infra Limited – Appellant
Versus
East India Udyog Limited – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Prakash Shrivastava, CJ. - This application under Section 11 of the arbitration and Conciliation act, 1996 has been field for appointment of arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the parties.
2. The case of the applicant is that the agreement was entered into between the applicant and the respondent in the form of a supply contract-cum-purchase order dated 10th January, 2018. In terms of the purchase order the respondent was required to supply power transformers of prescribed technical specification of SBPDCL and Rural Electrical Corporation to Gaya District of Bihar and the said contract was in nature of the sub-contract by the applicant in favour of the respondent. The allegation of the applicant is that the respondent had acted in breach of the purchase order as a result of which applicant has suffered substantial loss, damages. The purchase order contained the arbitration clause, therefore, applicant had sent the letter dated 23rd of September, 2020 to the respondent invoking the arbitration clause and nominating his arbitrator. Respondent by communication dated 19th of October, 2020 had refused the prayer for arbitration.
3. Submission of the learned Counsel for the
The court emphasized the importance of the written arbitration agreement and the designation of venue as the juridical seat of arbitral proceedings.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that an exchange of emails and a Purchase Order can constitute a written agreement between parties, satisfying the requirement of a written agreeme....
Jurisdiction for arbitration must align with the agreed seat specified in the contract, ensuring only that court adjudicates related matters.
The exchange of emails between parties constituted a valid written arbitration agreement, satisfying legal requirements under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Parties must adhere to arbitration and jurisdiction clauses as per original agreement, and any modifications require explicit agreement; the original jurisdiction remained binding.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Court with jurisdiction to entertain an application under Section 11 of the Act is the one where the cause of action and the application w....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
