Mahindra Susten Private Limited vs NHPC Limited

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2021 Supreme(Del) 1636

C. HARI SHANKAR
Mahindra Susten Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
NHPC Limited – Respondent

Advocates appeared:
K.V. Viswanathan, Advocate, Sanjeev Kapoor, Advocate, Prateek Kumar, Advocate, Sneha Janakiraman, Advocate, Apoorv Singhal, Advocate, Smriti Nair, Advocate, Tejas Karia, Advocate, Gauhar Mirza, Advocate, Prakhar Deep, Advocate, Nishant Doshi, Advocate

Table of Content
1. referring disputes to arbitration. (Para 2 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. overview of tendering processes. (Para 11 , 12 , 13)
3. challenges against jurisdiction and contract completion. (Para 25 , 26)
4. existence and validity of arbitration agreement. (Para 30 , 32)
5. orders on arbitration and interim relief. (Para 71 , 73 , 74)

JUDGMENT

C. Hari Shankar, J. - This judgment disposes of Arb. P. 217/2020 and OMP (I) (Comm) 162/2020.

2. Arb. P. 217/2020 seeks reference of the disputes, between the petitioner and respondent, to arbitration, under Section 11 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1996 Act"). OMP (I) (Comm) 162/2020 seeks certain pre-arbitral interim reliefs. Mr. Viswanathan, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted, at the outset, that, if Arb. P. 217/2020 were to be allowed, and the disputes between the petitioner and the respondent referred to arbitration as prayed therein, he would have no objection to OMP (I) (Comm) 162/2020 being also referred for adjudication to the arbitrator, treating it as an application under

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2021 Supreme(Del) 1636

C. HARI SHANKARMahindra Susten Private Limited – AppellantVersusNHPC Limited – Respondent

Cases Referred (23)

C. HARI SHANKAR
Mahindra Susten Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
NHPC Limited – Respondent