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

1981 Supreme(Ori) 18

R.N.MISRA
PRAHARAJ PARTNERS – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF ORISSA – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
B.K.MOHANTY, CH.P.K.MISRA, R.P.Dash, S.P.Choudhury

R. N. MISRA, C. J.

( 1 ) THE appeal is under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act and the revision application is under Section 115 of the Civil P. C. Both are, however, directed against one and the same order dated 10-8-79 passed by the learned subordinate Judge, Bhubaneswar, rejecting an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act on the basis that there was no clause for arbitration in the event of disputes in the agreement entered into between the parties. The original application before the learned Subordinate Judge was under Section 8 (2) of the Arbitration Act and not under Section 20 thereof. Section 39 (1) (iv)of the Act has, therefore, no application, and in my view the appeal is not maintainable. Accordingly. I dismiss the appeal on that count,

( 2 ) ADMITTEDLY the petitioner had undertaken execution of certain works on behalf of the State of Orissa through the Executive Engineer, Cuttack Public health Division (opposite party No. 2), The contract contained the following clause:-

"decision of Public Health Engineer to be final: except where otherwise specified in this contract the decision of the Public Health Engineer for the time being shall be final, conclusive a










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