L&T Hydrocarbon Engineering Limted vs Indian Oil Corporation Limited

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

DELHI HIGH COURT
V.KAMESWAR RAO
L&T Hydrocarbon Engineering Limted – Appellant
Versus
Indian Oil Corporation Limited – Respondent

Table of Content
1. nature of contract and claims of petitioner (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 8 , 9 , 10)
2. validity of arbitration provisions in contract (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 17)
3. compliance with contractual arbitration processes (Para 18 , 19 , 22)
4. jurisdiction of general manager regarding notified claims (Para 71 , 74)
5. validity of arbitration procedures and clauses (Para 73 , 76 , 96)
6. disposition of the petition and future actions (Para 98 , 99)

JUDGMENT

V. Kameswar Rao, J. The petitioner has preferred the instant petition under Section 11(5), (6) and (8) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as, `Act of 1996') with the following prayer:

"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to:

a) appoint an independent and impartial person, such as a retired judge of the Hon'ble Supreme Court or any High Court, as an arbitrator for adjudication of the disputes between the parties;

b) pass such other or further order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case."

2. It is the case where the petitioner viz. L & T Hydrocarbon Engineering Limited is a wholly owned subsidi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

DELHI HIGH COURTV.KAMESWAR RAOL&T Hydrocarbon Engineering Limted – AppellantVersusIndian Oil Corporation Limited – Respondent

DELHI HIGH COURT
V.KAMESWAR RAO
L&T Hydrocarbon Engineering Limted – Appellant
Versus
Indian Oil Corporation Limited – Respondent