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

2006 Supreme(Gau) 647

B.SUDERSHAN REDDY, AMITAVA ROY
State of Arunachal Pradesh – Appellant
Versus
Subhash Projects and Marketing Ltd. – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Amitava Roy, J.

1. Being aggrieved by the verdict of the learned Single Judge sustaining the challenge of the respondent No. 1 to the maintainability of the proceedings in the court of the Deputy Commissioner, Papumpare District, Arunachal Pradesh, registered on applications lodged by the State appellant under Section 14(1)(a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereafter referred to as the Act) as well as restraint orders passed therein interdicting the related arbitral proceedings, the State is in appeal. Though by the common judgment and order assailed seven writ petitions corresponding to equal number of proceedings before the learned Court below had been disposed of on the same determination appeals only in WP(C) 609/04 (WA 264/04) and WP(C) 9953/03 (WA 265/04) have been preferred.

2. We have heard Mr. C.K. Sharma Baruah, Advocate General, Arunachal Pradesh assisted by Mr. S. Shyam, Advocate for the appellant and Mr. P.C. Markanda and Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, Senior Advocates, assisted by Mr. Rajesh Markanda, Advocate for the respondent No. 1.

3. It would be essential to first lay the prefatory facts. Following a tender process initiated by the State of Arunachal Pr





































































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