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

2000 Supreme(Del) 578

MUKUL MUDGAL
G. VIJNYANAGHAVAN – Appellant
Versus
M. D. CENTRAL WAREHOUSING CORPORALK – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
A.RAGUNATHAN, Manvendra Verma

Mukul Mudgal

( 1 ) THIS Petition, Filed by the petitioner under Sections 12 and 13 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. , 1996 seeks to set aside the appointment of the respondent No. 2 as the Arbitrator and further seeks the appointment of a new and independent arbitrator to adjudicate the claims.

( 2 ) THE main plea of the petitioner is based upon that clause 19 of the contract between the parties the relevant portion of which reads as foflows:

"all disputes and difference arising out of or in any way touching or concerning this agreement whatsoever (Except the matter REFERRED TO to in Sub- Clause 30 of Clause XXI and as to any mailer the decision of which is expressly provided for in the contract) shall be REFERRED TO to the sofe arbitration of any person appointment by the Managing Director, Central Warehousing Corporation, New Delhi, It will he no objection to any such appointment that the person appointed is an employee of the Corporation that he had to deal with the matters to which the contract relates and that, in the course of his duties as such employee of the Corporation, he has expressed views on all or any of the matter in dispute or difference. "

( 3 ) IT is the sub







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